Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Caerphilly, in the room of the right hon. Ness Edwards, deceased—[Mr. O'Malley].

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DURBAN NAVIGATION COLLIERIES BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about the progress of his talks with the Minister of Agriculture in the Republic of Ireland in relation to the effects, on the dead meat industry in Northern Ireland, of the Anglo-Eire Trade Agreement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): Discussions with the Republic of Ireland, at both Ministerial and official level, on the trading relationships between our two countries under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement are still continuing. In the context of the discussions of the balance and phasing of cattle and beef shipments the particular interests of Northern Ireland are being kept in mind.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Apart from the damage to the recently established meat

plants in Northern Ireland, has not the arrival of heavy supplies of carcase meat on the British market been at the expense of the Republic of Ireland in regard to store cattle? Can we not do something about that?

Mr. Hughes: We are fully aware of the position. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the carcase meat subsidy was introduced in 1965, before the Irish Free Trade Area Agreement of July, 1966. It is worth bearing in mind that the money paid by the United Kingdom to the Irish Republic under the Agreement accounted for only one-quarter of the cost of the carcase meat subsidy to the Irish Republic in 1967–68, but we are bearing the meat plants in mind in our discussions.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can we still afford to subsidise Eire agriculture by £10 million a year from the United Kingdom taxpayers?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows full well what the terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement were, and I think these will be beneficial to both countries. The important thing is that we should have these consultations to make sure that the flow from one country to another is at a reasonable rate.

Food Prices

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department are taking to ensure that when the world market price of cashew nuts falls there is a corresponding reduction in the price of Snakpak salted cashew nuts to offset the recent 50 per cent. price increase; and what machinery is available to his department to ensure that the public receives the full benefit of downward movements in world food prices.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): The firm has been told that if the world price of cashew nuts falls significantly, this should be reflected in its selling price, in accordance with the criteria for price reductions set out in Cmnd. 3590.
On machinery, my Department keeps first-hand prices of foodstuffs under constant review. Normally, when these prices


fall by enough to reduce costs significantly, competition ensures that the fall is passed on to the public. But if this does not seem to be happening, my Department pursues the matter with the parties concerned.

Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend accept that this is not merely a "nuts" Question? Would he not agree that, whereas the market mechanism is certain to make sure that the housewife loses from the upward swing in world prices, the mechanism is inadequate to ensure that she gets the benefit of a downward turn in world prices?

Mr. Hoy: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that this is important. If world market prices come down, we expect that reduction to be reflected in the price. My hon. Friend must not overlook, on the other hand, that the price of potatoes, Danish and Dutch butter, New Zealand cheddar, and so on, have all recently been falling, to the advantage of the housewife.

Agricultural Output

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase in output of review commodities has occurred since devaluation of sterling in November, 1967; and what has been the aggregate value of such increases, as imports substitute and saving.

Mr. Hughes: Agricultural output can only be assessed over a full farm year, and it is not, therefore, possible to make such estimates.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, on 16th January last, I put to the Prime Minister that the saving potential of imports on British agriculture was £250 million a year within four years? The day before yesterday, the Economic Development Council published the figure of £220 million per annum imports saving within four years. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us some encouragement that we are making real and rapid progress towards this massively important objective?

Mr. Hughes: I am always anxious to give the hon. Gentleman encouragement, although I do not know how much good chat will do. It is obvious that he has not studied the Government's selective expansion programme. The report to

which he referred is very important and we are studying it carefully.

Mr. Godber: Are the Government still committed to the expansion of home production? If so, is their target that to which the right hon. Gentleman just referred, namely, the one in the National Plan, or is it now to be the higher figure given by the agricultural "Neddy"? Whichever it is, will he do something to stimulate increased production?

Mr. Hughes: The present programme is, of course, the selective expansion programme, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that the report of the "Little Neddy" has just been published and therefore we must have time to consider this because it has considerable implications. Also, the Select Committee on Agriculture has considered this matter and we shall need to consider what it says. We shall bear in mind all these considerations, but obviously they must take a little time to consider.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Compensation Payments)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what total of compensation for foot-and-mouth disease has been assessed since September 1967; what has been the total paid and the balance outstanding; and how many beasts have been slaughtered in the period stated.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): Up to 5th June, £26,634,832, including payments for carcases, feedingstuffs and milk seized and destroyed. All has been paid, apart from the balance of some disputed valuations amounting to about £26,000. Provisional figures of beasts slaughtered are 210,539 cattle, 104,285 sheep, 114,819 pigs and 39 goats.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Treasury is persisting in its desire to tax this compensation for foot-and-mouth slaughter? Will he make urgent representations to the Treasury that all compensation should be tax free and that the Treasury should drop this utterly abhorrent policy?

Mr. Mackie: No, Sir.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of that unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again at the earliest minute— that is, next week on the Finance Bill.

Atlantic Salmon

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress he has made with regard to the problem of the netting of salmon off the coast of Greenland.

Mr. Hoy: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) on Wednesday, 12th June.—[Vol. 766, c. 44–5.]

Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman try to convene a conference of interested nations in accordance with the plan put forward by Greenland, so that discussions can start to try to find a solution to this difficult problem?

Mr. Hoy: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we realise the seriousness of this, but we have just had a conference at which we played a major part, as a result of which an important motion was carried which now formally recognises the serious concern which not only we but others feel, and it has recommended that member Governments should consider action to prevent an increase in the fishing and urge them to give high priority to research. This was done with tremendous support from this country.

Mr. Stodart: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in 1965, two boats caught 10,000 salmon off Greenland and that, last year, 11 boats caught 100,000 salmon, and that, therefore, this is becoming a very grave problem?

Mr. Hoy: I do not dissent from those figures, although I do not know olfhand. I know that the arrival of the first two boats encouraged others. That is why we acted so quickly, the one country which did react so quickly to all this, and we can take a little pride in the fact that it was as a result of the work of our members at this conference that we got approval to go such a long way.

Home-Grown Food

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action the producer bodies

have taken to persuade the public to buy home-grown food that is competitive with imported food; and what assistance his Department has given them.

Mr. Hoy: A great deal of publicity work is being done by the organisations concerned. I am sending the hon. Member some examples of material put out by the British Farm Produce Council which also mounts exhibitions in depart ment stores throughout the country. In addition, advertising campaigns for individual products such as bacon, cheese and eggs are mounted by the producer organisations.
My Department keeps in close touch with these organisations and gives them support and encouragement whenever possible.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Would the hon. Gentleman encourage his right hon. Friend to take more positive action in this matter? It is, after all, slightly ridiculous that advertisements for the "Lion" egg are on the hoardings at the same time as the British public are being encouraged to eat, with that "Lion" egg, Danish or Polish bacon?

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman must realise that we cannot prevent the Danes or Poles advertising in this country, just as we hope that they would not prevent us advertising in their countries. All we can hope to do is persuade our people that what we are producing is a first-class product which should get priority from them. Price-wise, I think that we are producing things which people should be consuming much more.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Would my hon. Friend not agree, however, that there is a strong case for the use of quotas here, particularly in view of Britain's strong marketing position compared to some countries like Denmark?

Mr. Hoy: That is travelling very wide of the original Question, which was about publicity. Quotas and levies are a different matter.

Cereals (Minimum Import Prices)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in considering the level of minimum import prices for cereals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on cereals minimum import prices.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Negotiations with supplying countries have not yet been finalised, but I hope to be able to make an announcement in the next fortnight with a view to bringing the new levels of minimum import prices into operation from 1st August.

Mr. Stodart: Is the Minister aware of growing and reasonable indignation at the chaos and confusion in the grain market among those taking part in it, and the nullifying effect of this upon one of the main duties of the Home Grown Cereals Authority, to register advance contracts? Can he say why he is clinging to the rather tattered remnants of his predecessor's policy instead of bringing himself up to date with a levy system?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should know, from his experience in the Ministry, that agreements negotiated by the previous Government with four main supplying countries—the Argentine, Australia, Canada and the United States —prevent us from making an increase in the general level of minimum import prices without their consent. We have been negotiating, we are now coming to a conclusion and I will make an announcement shortly. We have been working as hard as possible to achieve this conclusion.

Mr. Prior: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, surely it cannot be to the advantage of the countries which he mentioned that Britain should continue to run an adverse balance of payments of £500 million or £600 million a year? How can we go on with this ridiculous position of paying more for imports than we need?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman must realise that what we have been doing is adhering to agreements which the Government which he supported entered into.

Fishing Industry (Government Assistance)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take in order to protect the fishing industry from under-

cutting by foreign countries by means of subsidies.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on his discussions with the fishing industry for replacing the present system of subsidies;
(2) if he will make a statement about his proposals for helping the fishing industry in their present difficulties, and state what discussions he has had about foreign landings of fresh fish and frozen fillets in this country.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement regarding Government assistance to the fishing industry.

Mr. Hoy: I would refer the hon. Members to theAnswers given on 19th June, 1968, to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior).—[Vol. 766, c. 140.]

Mr. Stodart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is one of the most callously indifferent Answers which he has given for a long time? Is he aware that the industry's plight is very much more serious than it was even a month ago, in May, when we debated this matter, and that it is relying on him personally to fulfil the pledge—part of which, as he will recognise, is contained in this Question—which he himself gave quite categorically a year ago?

Mr. Hoy: Indeed, and I would not go back on it. Unlike the party which was in Government when the hon. Gentleman was a responsible Minister, I fully appreciate the industry's difficulties. I hope that, very soon, in addition to what I have already said—certainly before the House rises—we shall make a statement.

Mr. Wall: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, unless he acts quickly, he will not have an industry to run? Is it possible to negotiate to prevent the present dumping by some form of subsidy or quota system? If not, are the Government prepared to foot the bill with bigger subsidies?

Mr. Hoy: The industry's present position is the direct result of the policy for which hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible—[An HON. MEMBER: "Change


it."] We have changed it. I have announced that we are not going to continue the policy which the party opposite introduced. Second, in a fuller consideration of this matter, we shall, for the very first time, consider the fish imports, which has never been done before by any Government.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the intense feeling in the Humberside ports about the present position, particularly in view of the disastrous day we had only last Monday as a result of the landings of fish? Would he agree that, for the first time, all sections of the industry —unions, employers and all others concerned—are united in asking that we be given some aid now at this difficult time in our affairs? Will he kindly be a little more forthcoming and give an indication when we might expect the statement to which he referred?

Mr. Hoy: I can only add, in reply to my hon. Friend, that we hope to produce the statement in the near future. [HON MEMBERS: "When?"] I said that the House would not rise for the Summer Recess before it had been made. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the industry has been in this position before and that for a considerable time certain parts of the industry have resented any Government interference.

Mr. Godber: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his comments are wholly inadequate to meet the situation? Is he also aware that it is not good enough for him to rest on the previous position? Will he now acknowledge that there has been a complete change in the import position in the last two years and that it is the duty of the Government to safeguard the industry from annihilation?

Mr. Hoy: It was because I realised the differences and because I appreciated that we could not rely on the policies initiated by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that I gave an intimation only a week or two ago about the changes that would take place. We are now working out, with the industry, the details of those changes, and I hope that, as a result, the industry will at long last be placed on a sound basis; something which was never done when the previous agreements were negotiated.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that a statement from him about limiting imports would be extremely welcome on all sides of the House? Is he further aware that while the leaders of the industry have in the past squealed about Government interference and have not wanted it, there is now need for Government action in view of the poor wages which the men have been getting, particularly in the past week or two, and that real concern should be directed to those who work in the industry?

Mr. Hoy: I appreciate that what is happening affects the industry as a whole. It is obvious that the British fishing industry can play a considerably important part in the economy. I also appreciate that in certain areas there is no alternative employment for those who work in it. I realise all these things. That is why I accept that, while the position must be improved for the employers, we must, at the same time, try to provide fish at reasonable prices for the consumer —a not unimportant consideration—and see that the conditions of those who work in the industry are also improved.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Is the Minister aware that the Annual Report of the White Fish Authority, published today, implies that some of the decline in the profitability of the industry has been due to increased imports?

Mr. Hoy: I thought that I had replied to that question. I said that when we were considering the policy, we would obviously consider it as a whole. That cannot be done unless we give consideration to what has gone on for so many years; and that is the free importation of this commodity into this country.

Mr. Clegg: Is the hon. Gentleman giving a categoric assurance that action will be taken on imports before the end of this Session?

Mr. Hoy: No. I said—and my words must not be misconstrued—that we would be making a statement about assistance for the industry before the Summer Recess. I added that, in the process of considering the matter, we would obviously have to take into consideration the part that imports have played in the economy of the industry.

Mr. Prior: Is the Minister aware that it is not good enough for him to keep jogging back over four years, since he has besn the Minister responsible for four years? Is he aware that the industry cannot wait any longer, particularly since We read in the newspapers that Norway is supplying £12 million for its fishing industry this year? What do Her Majesty's Government intend to do for the British industry?

Mr. Hoy: We, too, are supplying many millions of £s for our fishing industry. [Interruption.] That is true. We are supplying more than ever before. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that what is being done is not enough, but they must remember that every lime we ask for a little more money, they complain about increases in taxation or increases in the Civil Service. We must do the best for the industry that we can do. It is true that other countries carry subsidies. So do we. It is sometimes difficult to judge how much those other countries give. All that I can say at this point is that we have determined that in this review the industry will be put on a sound footing so that it can compete with is competitors on equal terms.

Mr. Prior: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Potatoes

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what encouragement he will give to increased production of home-grown early potatoes.

Mr. Hoy: New potatoes imported from non-Commonwealth sources from 16th May to 30th June are liable to a protective duty of £9 6s. 8d. a ton, and I am not aware that further encouragement is needed.

Mr. Brewis: That is a most unsatisfactory Answer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that imports of Cyprus and other foreign potatoes are flooding into this country at an extremely low tariff and that in July the tariff will be less than a farthing a lb.? Is he aware that we can produce potatoes just as well at home?

Will he therefore consider a complete change of policy for the protection of home growers?

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman refers to potatoes flowing in with a very low tariff in July. I cannot say what the figure will be—[Interruption.]—or confirm his figure. I can only say that our producers are protected to a considerable extent as a result of the imposition of substantial import duties on anything other than Commonwealth produce. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should impose somewhat similar terms on Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Owing to the importance to Pembrokeshire and South Wales generally of the early potato crop and the fact that they are dependent on road transport, would the hon. Gentleman say how much per ton the cost of producing potatoes in these areas is rising as a result of S.E.T., the Budget and the iniquitous Transport Bill?

Mr. Hoy: As the Transport Bill has not yet come into operation, it obviously cannot have had an effect on the cost of producing potatoes. People should not exaggerate the position in the way that the hon. Gentleman has done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am answering and I do not believe that S.E.T. has had any great effect, either. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not believe that S.E.T. has made a remarkable difference.
We are, of course, aware of the difficulties of the potato industry at the present time. The early crop has been a little later than usual and the following crop has come a little earlier. This set of circumstances has produced the present difficulties, but it must be remembered that during this period there has been in operation quite a large tariff on imports.

Mr. W. Baxter: Notwithstanding the fact that there is a large tariff on foreign potatoes, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that the market has been flooded to a great extent? Would he agree that our first priority must be to the home producer, that our second must be to the Commonwealth and that our third can be to foreign imports? Will he look at this whole matter again in view of the fact that many of the potatoes


grown in Britain are being used for pigfeed?

Mr. Hoy: My hon. Friend has the priorities nearly correct. They must, first, be to the home producer, and then to our Commonwealth partners. However, we must not forget the housewife, who must be able to buy potatoes in the shops and we must ensure that she obtains supplies at reasonable prices. This is why imports from foreign countries pay a tariff which is not paid by Commonwealth producers.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Although the hon. Gentleman appears to be satisfied with the present tariff, is it not clear, from the flood of foreign potatoes on the market, that the tariff is inadequate? Since he indicated that he does not know what the position will be in July, which is only a week or so away, is it not time that he studied the position to see what action can be taken to deal with the position between now and July?

Mr. Hoy: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we always have this matter under review. In any event, I did not say that I was unaware of the position. I said that I could not confirm the figure given by his hon. Friend for July. I do not know from where the hon. Gentleman got that figure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I can neither confirm nor deny it.

Mr. Manuel: Will my hon. Friend make certain that if there is to be greater control on the import of new potatoes, the price of home-grown potatoes will be kept as reasonable as the housewife can afford?

Mr. Hoy: That is always the great difficulty and I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying. We are seeking to give a fair return to the producer. This is important. At the same time, it is the duty of my Ministry to see that the housewife is able to buy potatoes at reasonable prices.

Mr. Brewis: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether

he will make a statement on the import of early potatoes and the effect on home producers.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Since the first week in June prices for early potatoes have been lower for this time than for some years past. This has been due, first, to weather conditions which caused the earliest crops from the south and west to overlap with the eastern counties crop which usually arrives about a fortnight later, and second, to the increase of about 7,000 in the acreage planted to first earlies. Imports, most of which arrive before mid-May, have not been a critical factor.

Mr. Kitson: Are not fanners who are lifting potatoes at present losing up to about £50 an acre? Is not there a complete collapse in the home market? What does the Minister intend to do about it?

Mr. Hughes: I agree that, for the reasons I gave, farmers are not having as good a year as they had last year, which was a splendid year for them, and as they had the year before that. There are unpredictable factors, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The Government can help. We help with an import tariff, with a top rate of £9 6s. 8d. a ton from mid-May to the end of June. If market support operations are necessary, the Board can buy from growers of earlies any potatoes not marketed before 1st August. There are considerable safe-iguards which the hon. Gentleman should consider.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: Will my right hon. Friend consider the correspondence which I sent him this week about another feature of this problem as it affects my constituents—that is, the growers of early seed potatoes, the best in this country? Unless the potato growers of Pembrokeshire are able to market their potatoes, they may leave them in the ground and there will be no market for the seed growers of Brecon and Radnor.

Mr. Hughes: I have enormous sympathy for Breconshire and for my hon. Friend. I will consider his letter very carefully when I receive it. I refer him to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson).

Milk

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in View of the fact that there is no milk surplus in this country, but a serious dilution of the pool price is being experienced, if he is satisfied with the effects of the recent price review increase; and if he will make a statement on the results of his discussions on this matter.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The prices currently being paid to producers by the Milk Marketing Boards do not necessarily reflect the level for the year as a whole. It is too early to forecast the final pattern of prices which can be influenced by many different factors.

Mr. Mills: Is the Minister aware that, in spite of the promise in the Price Review, the return to producers in June is a halfpenny a gallon less than it was last year? This is not the way to bring any sort of confidence into the dairy industry. Will he start to do something about it now?

Mr. Hughes: It is worth bearing in mind that the monthly prices are slightly less than last year but the Milk Marketing Board is allowed for cost increases and lower prices for manufacturing milk. It is too soon yet to forecast average prices for the year as a whole.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is not one of the reasons why the price is being eroded the import of milk products, particularly cheese? What is the Minister doing to satisfy growing anxiety, to control the import of those products?

Mr. Hughes: The price of British-produced cheese is remaining reasonably stable at present. We are considering representations made to us by the Milk Marketing Board and the unions, but proposals for control of imports have to be considered in relation to our international commitments and general commercial policy.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to expand home production of milk products to save imports; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The awards given by the Government at the recent

Reviews to encourage an increase in beef production in pursuance of the selective expansion programme should enable the industry to make a contribution to the increasing demand for milk products.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Does not the Minister agree that unless there is a levy on imports there is no chance of this being achieved?

Mr. Hughes: I do not agree. I think that I and my colleagues in the Government should consider alternative possibilities. This is not an easy matter. There are considerable and difficult implications for the farming industry and for the consumer which it is important that we consider very carefully before we make any major switch of policy.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to help to ease the balance of payments problem by encouraging the industry to use modern techniques to export dairy produce from this country, including liquid milk?

Mr. Hughes: These are matters which are being considered by the British Agricultural Export Council. The important thing is that we should produce more for our own consumption at home.

Dairy Products

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the fact that the dumping of surplus dairy produce in this country is causing a crisis in the dairy industry, what steps he is taking to remedy the situation by limiting imports or other appropriate action.

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his general policy for controlling the import of dairy products.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I have at present nothing further to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on 19th June.

Mr. Mills: Does the Minister realise that, because of the almost criminal reluctance of the Government to act upon imports, the worst dairy crisis for many years is upon us and that, if he wishes to do anything, he must act soon and very quickly?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member does not help the situation by using such exaggerated language. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is the kind of thing which causes alarm in the industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] The hon. Member clearly has not studied the situation adequately. There have been discussions with the Boards and unions, particularly about imports of cheddar cheese. The matter is being considered, but he should recognise that these matters cannot be completed quickly.

Mr. Monro: Does the Minister agree that much that is imported is heavily subsidised? How can the farmer expand if we are flooded out with imports?

Mr. Hughes: There is truth in what the hon. Member has said, but we are looking at the situation.

Mr. Godber: Will the Minister say quite simply whether or not he accepts that there is serious dumping of milk products—not just cheese, but all milk products—taking place at present? If he accepts that, what action are the Government to take to safeguard the home industry?

Mr. Hughes: The price of British cheese is remaining stable. A difficulty could arise, but the right hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate because butter, butter-oil and near-butter are subject to quota arrangements. We are consulting with the interests concerned at present and we shall come to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the United Kingdom market for dairy products will be supplied from home-produced sources this year; and what steps he is taking to increase it.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Excluding milk for liquid consumption, home production provided 23 per cent. of our requirements for dairy products in 1967. On recent trends, the proportion this year should be similar, but it is too early to give a reliable forecast. The measures taken under the selective expansion programme should enable the home producer to take his share of the growing market for milk products.

Mr. Brewis: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen that the French immediately put on import controls when their economy is in difficulties? Can he say how long it will be before he can bring in anti-dumping measures?

Mr. Hughes: We do not necessarily have to imitate the French Government in all they do. We have international commitments, and we have international obligations for which the party opposite had some responsibility. We are honouring those obligations. This we shall continue to do in the best interests of British fanning. The problems mentioned by hon. Members opposite have not been overlooked. We shall act as soon as possible.

Mr. Jopling: How can the right hon. Gentleman make a reply like that when a situation exists in which the European Economic Community is paying an export subsidy seven times the selling price for certain dairy produce? Will he snap out of this appalling complacency?

Mr. Hughes: In view of the supplementary questions, I must set the record straight. Although imports have risen there is certainly no indication of a market collapse. It is important for the industry and producers that that should be understood. Prices of United Kingdom cheeses are being well maintained, and for milk producers the safeguard is the milk guarantee.

Mr. Manuel: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if we had far fewer gentleman fanners whose main pastime is asking political questions—[Interruption.] —if they were all working farmers we would get greatly increased production?

Mr. Hughes: My Ministry's concern is to encourage the hard-working farmer and at the same time to protect the interests of the consumer.

Mr. Stodart: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to obligations he has to maintain. Is it not a fact that in dairy products the obligation he is up against is that made by his predecessor, the present Leader of the House, which gave the New Zealand Government unlimited access to these markets up to 1972?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are quotas


in relation to butter, near-butter products and butter-oil. The situation with cheese is slightly different, I agree, and this we are looking at.

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the comparative weights of dairy product imports in the first five months of 1967 and 1968.

Mr. Hoy: The weights during the periods January to April 1967 and 1968, inclusive, were 272,575 tons and 275,669 tons, respectively. Figures for May 1968 are not yet available.

Mr. Smith: Do not those figures show that our dairy farmers have every reason to be apprehensive? Will the Minister now take positive action by imposing import levies on milk products coming into this country in order to save our dairy industry from a serious deterioration?

Mr. Hoy: We want to give all the encouragement and protection we can. The hon. Gentleman talks in terms of a large increase, but it was 3,000 tons on 275,000 tons. One must put it into perspective. It was as a result of certain representations that we took action on the import of butter oil into this country and imposed a restrictive quota so as to give protection to our own industry.

Mr. Stodart: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that a year ago, in reply to a similar question, his right hon. Friend the previous Minister of Agriculture replied that the then increase was serious? Would not he say that the present increase is very serious?

Mr. Hoy: No, Sir. I have said that it ought to be taken into consideration in proportion to the total, that is, 3,000 as against 275,000 tons. One should neither exaggerate nor belittle it. When these figures are produced, it is up to any Government to look at them and protect our interests.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the considerable apprehension and consternation among small dairy farmers, what steps will the Government take to bring a Measure before the House to decrease their rents?

Mr. Hoy: My hon. Friend has frequently raised the question of rents,

which is extremely important for tenants. I regret that I have no announcement to make about it at present.

New Seed Varieties

Mr. Kimball: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on what terms the National Seed Development Organisation acquires new seed varieties from the Agricultural Research Council stations;
(2) if he will ensure that in arriving at a sale price for new seed varieties the National Seed Development Organisation will make a realistic charge for development costs reflecting the £7 million of public funds expended by Government plant breeding establishments.

Mr. John Mackie: The plant breeding stations supported by the Agricultural Research Council make no charge for the small quantities of breeders' seed of new plant varieties supplied to the National Seed Development Organisation Ltd. for development purposes. In their guidance to the Organisation on general and financial policy, the Agricultural Ministers have stated that the Organisation will be expected to secure the best possible return on the public funds invested in plant breeding, to co-operate with the seeds industry wherever possible and to avoid unfair competition. I am satisfied that both in its prices to the trade for basic seed and in its royalty rates on protected varieties, the Organisation is following these principles.

Mr. Kimball: I hope the Minister realises the very grave concern in the trade about the danger of State intervention in a highly competitive market, £7 million spent on Government seed breeding, but most of us would like to see new varieties developed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A question please.

Mr. Kimball: —new varities developed with public money made available to the trade by auction.

Mr. Mackie: I do not think the trade is quite so worried. We had long discussions with the trade. I know that some members of the trade felt that this organisation was established simply to deal with varieties used by our plant-breeding stations. It might have been


operated in a different way, but this is a difficult problem. We think this is the right way to do it. After all, it has been going for only just over a year. We should give it a chance and see how it works.

Selective Expansion Programme

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the monthly rate of food imports since the introduction of the selective expansion programme.

Mr. John Mackie: The selective expansion programme was announced in September, 1965. During 1965 the average monthly value of imports of food and live animals was £131 million. It remained at this level in 1966 and rose to £134 million in 1967. The average monthly value for the first five months of 1968 was £154 million compared with £140 million in the same period in 1967.

Mr. MacArthur: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that that makes nonsense of all the Governmental claptrap about expansion? Is he aware that farmers in Scotland have not been able to detect a sign of a selective expansion programme? Will he rapidly announce his acceptance of the agricultural "Neddy" Report, published yesterday, and allow the industry to get on with the expansion drive which it is anxious and able to see through?

Mr. Mackie: The rise in the price of imports is in the foods we could not have grown in this country. The import of all the temperate foods which we grow is at just about the same level over the last two or three years. If the hon. Member follows the evidence given to the Select Committee he will see the figures which have been given there.

Sir D. Renton: What proportion of the food imports over the last two years which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned could have been produced at home? What steps will he take to ensure that those products are produced at home in future so as to make a major contribution towards solving our economic difficulties?

Mr. Mackie: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been following all the various arguments and discussions

which have been going on recently about agricultural production, he would have seen the figures that we have for our selective expansion programme and the figures that the little Neddy for agriculture produced two days ago. My right hon. Friend is examining those. Agriculture has been given more encouragement in the last three and a half years than it ever had before. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks, not only at the figures, but around the countryside, he will see that farmers are responding to that encouragement.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the progress of the selective expansion programme for agriculture.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I cannot usefully add to the account of progress given in the Annual Review White Paper which was presented to the House on 6th March.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Does not the Minister agree that only one of the last six years has seen a smaller expansion in the beef herd than the last 12 months? Will he couple that with the fact that there was a high level of calf slaughtering? Does not that indicate that what he needs to do most is to encourage confidence in farmers?

Mr. Hughes: I was referring to the Annual Review, which envisages a continuing expansion in the beef, dairy and pig herds, the maintenance of the sheep flock, and further expansion in the cereals programme, especially of wheat. This amounts to a very substantial programme.

Mr. Godber: Is it still the Government's intention that the selective expansion programme introduced by his predecessor, who I am glad to see has just joined us, will be achieved by the date which was stated?

Mr. Hughes: On present calculations we believe that it will be achieved, but we might even improve on it.

Milk Powder (Imports)

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the volume and value of milk powder imports in the first five months of 1967 and 1968.

Mr. Hoy: In the first four months of 1968, as compared with the same period in 1967, the volume and value of milk powder imports declined slightly. Figures for May 1968 are not yet available. I will, with permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Monro: Is not the important point that the price of milk powder which is now imported is falling rapidly due to overseas subsidy? How long does the

January-April, 1967
January-April, 1968





tons
£'000
tons
£'000


Preserved milk in solid form


Whole Milk Powder
…
…
9,684
1,876
6,843
1,334


Skimmed Milk Powder
…
…
16,341
1,832
15,870
1,712


All other
…
…
1,803
161
1,302
120





27,828
3,869
24,015
3,166

Cereal Stocks

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the carry-over of cereals stocks to the next cereals year.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: It is too early to estimate with any precision the stocks remaining on farms at the end of June, but if the rate of disposal during May is maintained, I do not expect that there will be more than the normal amounts remaining on farms of origin at this time.

Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest progress of the brucellosis eradication scheme.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme; and what plans he has for introducing into the scheme greater financial incentives.

Mr. John Mackie: Up to the end of May, 9,550 applications for membership of the Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme had been received. Some 5,000 herds are in the varying stages of their qualifying tests, and 514 herds have been registered as accredited. We see no immediate need to introduce greater financial incentives in view of the encouraging response to this scheme. How-

Parliamentary Secretary think that the price will go, and what action will he take.

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman asked me what the imports were. I thought that he would have been delighted to hear that a decline had occurred. I hope that what we have done and what has happened will strengthen our own position.

Following are the details:

ever, the scheme will be reviewed with the Farmers' Unions again in the autumn.

Mr. Baker: Despite the hon. Gentleman's reply, does he not agree that the most significant contribution the Government could make to this scheme would be to introduce a slaughter and compensation policy, which so far they have withheld?

Mr. Mackie: I could not disagree with the hon. Gentleman more. If we were to introduce a slaughter policy we would be short of milk and everything else literally overnight.

Mr. Morrison: Despite the figures the hon. Gentleman gave, does he not agree that the bulk of applications to join the scheme come from pedigree breeders and producer/retailers and that, when these have been dealt with, it is likely that there will be a considerable slackening off in the number of applications, unless better incentives are given?

Mr. Mackie: There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that.

Dr. John Dunwoody: May I assure my hon. Friend that his Answer will be welcomed by many people and that the achievements which have already been made will make a significant contribution, not only to improving animal health, but also to improving human health?

Mr. Mackie: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Egg Marketing (Report)

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he hopes to publish the report of the Reorganisation Commission on Egg Marketing; and when he will announce his decisions upon it.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The report was published on 21st June. We are giving urgent consideration to it and have asked the organisations concerned to let us have their comments on the major recommendations by the end of next month. We shall decide on the action to be taken in the light of the comments received. While we fully recognise the urgency, I cannot say now when I am likely to be able to make a statement.

Mr. Baker: Does not the Minister agree that, if the Egg Marketing Board is disbanded, it will be a mortal blow to small egg producers in the more remote parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hughes: It is not possible for me to agree or disagree with the hon. Gentleman at present. It would be premature for me to make an announcement in advance of consultations with all the interests concerned.

Mr. Godber: Although we accept that this is a very important Report which must be considered fully, will the Minister give an assurance that we shall have the opportunity of debating it fully in the House before decisions are reached, and will he make representations in that regard to the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons?

Mr. Hughes: I will certainly make representations to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to make representations through the usual channels.

Mr. McNamara: Will my right hon. Friend, in considering this question, pay particular attention to the interests of the consumer with a view to keeping eggs low in price for the housewife and not, as has been suggested as a result of this report, increasing the price?

Mr. Hughes: As Minister of Food it is my duty to protect the consumer, but I must also see to the interests of the producer.

Cheese Imports

Mr. Prior: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the volume of cheese imports in the first five months of 1968 compared with the first five months of 1967.

Mr. Hoy: The tonnage during the period January to April, 1968, inclusive, was 66,108 tons, compared with 53,135 tons in the corresponding period of 1967. Figures for May, 1968, are not yet available.

Mr. Prior: Those figures show a most unsatisfactory increase in cheese imports. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the feeling of exasperation and almost despair in the farming community because quicker action is not possible in dealing with dumping? Does he realise that it is no good going back over the ground and that what we need is quick action and a quicker form of control than we have had hitherto?

Mr. Hoy: That is true, and that is why the legislation which is at present before another place was introduced.

Hill Cow Subsidy

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to extend the scope of the Livestock Rearing Act, 1951 to enable the downs and hills of Southern England to qualify for the hill cow subsidy.

Mr. Hoy: Hill cow subsidy has always been restricted to the livestock rearing areas of the North and West where farming conditions generally are especially difficult. We should not feel justified in extending it now to uplands in other parts of the country; but we had such areas especially in mind when the beef cow subsidy was introduced two years ago.

Mr. Woodnutt: As the uplands to which I refer—there are hundreds of acres in the Isle of Wight—are used for no other form of farming, would not the Minister, if he really intends to increase


the beef breeding herd, do best by extending the subsidy so that these lands could be put to use?

Mr. Hoy: There are always difficulties in such cases. Whenever a line is drawn, there are the people within it and those outside it. We have to do our best to see that, if encouragement is given, it is given to those who deserve it. If we bring it further down the map, I do not know what we shall exclude.

Meat Inspection (Charges)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that the present level of maximum charges under, the Meat Inspection (Amendment) Regulations, 1966 is insufficient and is causing some local authorities to finance the service partly out of the local rates; and whether he will review the position.

Mr. John Mackie: We are satisfied that the present maximum charges, while not necessarily representing the full cost of meat inspection in all cases are nevertheless sufficient to enable local authorities to provide a full and effective service. My right hon. Friend's predecessor reviewed the position in 1966, and we do not propose to do so at the present time.

Mr. Turton: Has not the time come for a review of the whole meat charges system, which is unpopular with the meat trade and is bearing heavily on ratepayers in the producing areas rather than the consuming areas?

Mr. Mackie: I do not think that that is so. I admit that there are difficulties because there are areas of low rateable value and large slaughter numbers, and this does create a problem. But, as I said to the right hon. Gentleman, we have reviewed the system once since 1963. We do not propose to review it immediately, but we shall keep the situation in mind. It is not an easy one.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is it not a fact that in many of the areas where rateable values are low to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred meat inspection is not being carried out satisfactorily?

Mr. Mackie: This is one of our difficulties. One of the reasons for bringing

in the 1963 Act was to try to ensure that it was done satisfactorily. When we reviewed the system in 1966, we could see no reason to alter it. The powers given to regulate times of slaughtering were of tremendous help because it overcame one of the difficulties which made the system expensive, when overtime had to be paid for Sunday mornings and all the odd times when slaughterers want to turn out to kill their cattle.

Argentine Beef (Import)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the findings of the report, details of which have been sent to him, by the British Veterinary Association, published on 15th June, recommending the total ban of imports of meat from countries with foot-and-mouth disease, whether he will now order a resumption of the ban on the import of beef from Argentina.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I think that the hon. Member is referring to the evidence given by the British Veterinary Association to the Northumberland Committee, a copy of which has been sent to me. This evidence will be for consideration by the Committee, and it would be wrong for me to comment at this stage.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a most authoritative piece of evidence which should be treated with the utmost seriousness, and does it not give great emphasis to the views of those who said that the ban on the import of beef from the Argentine should not have been lifted?

Mr. Hughes: I agree that this is a report which must be looked at with great respect, but any reconsideration of the Government's decision about imports of beef from South America should await the report of the Northumberland Committee. I understand that the Northumberland Committee is giving priority to the policy questions which it was asked to consider, and it will present the first part of its report dealing with these matters as soon as possible.

Mr. Wellbeloved: In advising the House to await the Northumberland Committee's report, will my right hon. Friend


bear in mind that the report has already been highly prejudiced by the statements made by a member of the Committee urging a ban on imported meat, and will he consider dismissing Mr. Henry Plumb from the Committee?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend has a later Question on that subject on the Order Paper.

Canned and Packet Soups (Standards)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to introduce regulations providing minimum standards for canned and packet soups.

Mr. Hoy: The Food Standards Committee has recently completed a comprehensive review of soups, and its Report was published on 6th June. My right hon. Friend has invited interested organisations to let him have their comments on the Committee's Report by 9th September, and he will then consider what action is necessary.

Mrs. Butler: When he has the replies and is considering laying regulations, will my hon. Friend ensure that the standards are adequate to enable the many elderly people and others who use these soups as quickly prepared and easily digested forms of nourishment to obtain real nutrition from such products?

Mr. Hoy: That is the whole intention. We hope that, when the regulations are introduced, they will give that assurance to people who purchase the products.

Cyclamates

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will issue further advice to consumers of soft drinks and other foods containing cyclamate artificial sweetening, following the reports of recent researches in Austria on the subject, details of which have been sent to him.

Mr. Hoy: No, Sir. The Austrian research work to which my hon. Friend refers is not new. Although it has only recently been published, it was considered in 1967 by the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee before it reaffirmed its earlier recommendation as to the safety in use of cyclamates.

Mrs. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that when a report like this is published, or republished, it causes considerable alarm to consumers, particularly those who have heart, circulatory and liver complaints, who are told that they may be particularly susceptible to even small amounts of cyclamates? Will he issue a circular to manufacturers calling on them to state on the labels whether their products contain cyclamates, and, if so, how much, as guidance to people-who are worried about all this?

Mr. Hoy: I have already replied to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. If evidence is re-published, that does not alter it from what it was originally. As I said, what was published originally was taken into consideration before the decision was made.

Mr. John Hall: Would not the Minister agree that if there is any doubt whatsoever about the effect on health of an additive to foodstuffs, at least it should be published on the label, so that people who believe that their health might suffer from ingesting those additives would know what was contained in the foodstuffs and would then avoid them?

Mr. Hoy: As the hon. Gentleman knows, if this point had been considered, it would not have been approved by this very distinguished Committee, which went into the whole matter. Our Committee's verdict has been supported by the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the other international organisations whose job it is to consider these matters. This evidence was available when that very expert Committee considered the matter in the first place.

NIGERIA (MINISTER'S VISIT)

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the visit of his noble Friend Lord Shepherd to Nigeria.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): During his visit to Lagos, my noble Friend Lord Shepherd had three lengthy meetings with General Gowon and other


members of the Federal Government. He was also able to pay visits to Calabar and Enugu to see for himself some of the problems of relief and rehabilitation and to speak to civilians and prisoners of war in those areas.
In addition to delivering a letter to General Gowon from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Lord Shepherd had four main aims in going to Lagos. First, he wished to follow up the contacts which he had already had separately with representatives of the two sides in London, with a view to securing a resumption of talks between them after the break-down of the peace talks at Kampala. He had already been promised by the Biafran representative, Sir Louis Mbanefo, that he would be prepared to resume direct informal talks in London provided that Lord Shepherd was able to satisfy himself that the Federal Government were prepared for meaningful negotiations. In Lagos, General Gowon assured Lord Shepherd that the Federal Government were ready to start direct talks on an informal basis as soon as possible and to send a representative to London for this purpose with a view to reconvening the Kampala conference.
As a result of his discussions, Lord Shepherd is satisfied that meaningful talks are possible and Her Majesty's Government hope that Sir Louis Mbanefo will shortly return to London to take up this offer. Lord Shepherd will be seeing Mr. Arnold Smith, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth tomorrow morning about the practical arrangements for the resumption of talks.
Second, in response to Lord Shepherd's inquiries, General Gowon expressed the readiness of his Government to see, as part of a satisfactory ceasefire arrangement, the introduction of an external observer force. He emphasised that the purpose of such a force would be to give a sense of security to the Ibo people.
Third, Lord Shepherd was able, in Lagos, to emphasise the concern which is felt in this country about the need to avoid unnecessary casualties. He stressed the urgent necessity of achieving a negotiated end to hostilities before the conflict reached a scale likely to cause greater suffering and loss of life to the civilian population.
Lord Shepherd was given earnest assurances by the Federal Government as to their wish to co-operate in this and keep casualties to a minimum. General Gowon said that it was not his intention to order further bombing attacks except against important military targets such as airfields being used for arms supplies. General Gowon underlined the responsibility which he, personally, and the Federal Government felt for the safety and well-being of all Nigerians.
Fourth, Lord Shepherd emphasised the need to bring urgent relief to the population suffering from the effects of the conflict. General Gowon promised his Government's full and ready co-operation in allowing relief supplies to be taken through an agreed corridor in the fighting lines under the control of the International Red Cross, and was ready to put at the disposal of the Red Cross whatever airports or sea ports were considered most practicable.
Her Majesty's Government are urgently considering what more we can do to relieve the plight of refugees in war-stricken areas. It is our intention to increase significantly our financial contribution to the relief of distress and I shall make a further statement on this aspect shortly.
With permission, I will have the communique issued at the end of Lord Shepherd's visit printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and am glad to see him back in good health.
The whole House will hope that talks may be resumed, although we understand the stubborn nature of the political difficulties. When talking about the observer force, the right hon. Gentleman did not report on General Gowon's attitude to it. May we take it that he is willing to see an observer force introduced?
Perhaps I might concentrate my question on the matter of relief, which is probably uppermost in the mind of the House. If there are no obstacles on the Federal side to relief going into Biafra, what are the obstacles? If it is true that the Biafrans are afraid that the food supplies are tampered with, which I believe is one of the reasons why they


will not accept them, it is possible that the Government might consider the use of Transport Command, with planes properly certified by the Red Cross as carrying only food, so that they would not have to go near Federal territory? I put that to the Minister as a suggestion. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider some of these things.

Mr. Thomson: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question, I did say in my rather long statement that General Gowon had expressed a readiness to see an external observer force set up.
In reply to the other question, about which there is such deep concern in the House and country, the present obstacle to getting the relief that is urgently needed is that the International Red Cross is awaiting a reply from the Bia-fran side. We are ready to look at any practicable way in which we can be of assistance, within the economic limitations that are obviously imposed on us, and I shall consider what the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
The important thing to bear in mind about air transport is that the International Red Cross is convinced that the only way in which the volume of relief supplies now needed for Biafra can be got into Biafra is by a land route, because the present airstrips in Biafra are inadequate to meet the volume of supplies required.

Mr. Henig: Is it now the case that the two sides in the war are willing to have an unconditional cease-fire as the first step in their peace talks? Since the Nigerian Federal Government now seem to be in control of all legitimate military targets in the war, did Lord Shepherd make it clear to them that a majority opinion, certainly in the House of Commons, would be loath to see any further supplies of British arms for use against the Biafrans?

Mr. Thomson: The question of the supply of arms was stated with great clarity by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the debate on 12th June. He then emphasised that there were two considerations that might compel a revision of British policy in this respect. One would be a loss of life that would seem to British public opinion to

be avoidable in further military operations, and the second would be an unwillingness by the Federal Government to enter into negotiations. One of the useful results of the visit of my noble Friend Lord Shepherd, was to get very clear assurances from the Federal Government on both those points.

Earl of Dalkeith: What exactly is meant by "an observer force"? Would the right hon. Gentleman try to jerk the Prime Minister out of his lethargy into taking the initiative with Commonwealth Prime Ministers to set up an established peace-keeping force for use on occasions like this?

Mr. Thomson: I think that what is meant by "an observer force" is something which must be discussed between the two sides to the conflict and the countries that would be willing to contribute. I can only say, with regard to the noble Lord's remarks about the lethargy of my right hon. Friend, that my right hon. Friend has taken the initiative from the British side in trying to get active consideration given by interested countries to the setting-up of this kind of force, which would fulfil the crucial element in bringing the conflict to an end by offering safeguards on the safety of the Ibo population.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we appreciate very much the efforts made by Lord Shepherd and hope very much that out of them will come talks? But the first thing is to get a cease-fire. I gather that my right hon. Friend said that General Gowon told Lord Shepherd that he would stop bombing any places except those of military interest, or whatever the term was.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates that it seems to those of us who have some knowledge of Nigeria that what we have at the moment in Biafra is a large number of people roaming the country homeless and starving. Just to cease bombing is not what is wanted at the present time. What is wanted is a cease-fire and a renewal of the talks at Kampala in this context so that the Ibo people can be secured from what has happened to them in the past. May I urge my right hon. Friend to press for a cease-fire? If we cannot achieve


that, cannot we stop the supply of arms to Nigeria?

Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said about the work of Lord Shepherd, who worked indefatigably last weekend in Lagos and other parts of Nigeria to promote the cause of peace. It was not for the British Government to offer any particular peace formula, but what they have obtained from both sides in the conflict in recent days is an expression of willingness to come to talks without pre-conditions. The next step is to get that expression of willingness given practical effect by getting the two sides around the table— I hope in London.

Mr. David Steel: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in addition to these constructive initiatives to get both sides together and secure help for the refugees, the Government are prepared to take any initiatives at the international level to stop arms going into Nigeria?

Mr. Thomson: One of the benefits of bringing about a cease-fire, which must be our aim, is to create conditions in which both sides would feel prepared to suspend the import of arms.

Mr. Murray: While I am sure that the whole House would give credit to Lord Shepherd and my right hon. Friend for their efforts to end the conflict, would not the Government think twice about supplying arms to the Federal Government? My right hon. Friend said that he will be making a statement shortly about supplies through the International Red Cross. How long will "shortly" be, in view of the many thousands who are dying in Nigeria at the present time?

Mr. Thomson: I always hate to prophesy about "shortly", because one never knows what snags one may meet. But we are dealing with the matter with the utmost sense of urgency. It is being dealt with hour by hour in my office.
With regard to my hon. Friend's question, Lord Shepherd made clear in Lagos that the British Government might feel compelled to review their policy on the supply of arms if the war were to lead to avoidable human casualties.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is not the position that the two principal suppliers of arms to Nigeria are Great Britain and Soviet

Russia—Soviet Russia rather more so than Great Britain? Is it not, therefore, sensible to talk to the Russians in London and elsewhere about their stopping the supply of arms?

Mr. Thomson: I think that the hon. Gentleman starts at the wrong end of the problem. The urgent thing now—we are very close to it—is to get the two sides around the table to agree on a cease-fire. On the basis of that one can then make the kind of progress that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: While I join with others in congratulating my right hon. Friend on the work of Lord Shepherd in securing negotiations for a land corridor for relief supplies and the other results that he has obtained, may I press my right hon. Friend on the subject of arms? Since the United States said from the beginning that it would supply no arms for this war, and since Belgium and Czechoslovakia have also stopped sending arms, will not the British Government, so as to make the cease-fire effective and lasting, stop our own supply of arms and take maximum efforts to secure a general international stoppage of such arms?

Mr. Thomson: I understand the depth of feeling of my right hon. Friend on this matter, but it needs two sides to make a cease-fire effective. The major priority here is to get the two sides around the table in order to bring about that ceasefire.

Mrs. Ewing: May I call the attention of my right hon. Friend to a petition on behalf of Biafran mothers resident in Scotland who have had no news of their children since March, 1967? I do that in the hope that a promise may be obtained during the talks that information can be given now to quieten the distraught minds of such people in this country who have no news of their relatives in Biafra.

Mr. Thomson: I hope that one of the results of getting an effective relief operation going quickly will be to provide information about the actual conditions in Biafra and information about such personal cases as the hon. Lady has in mind.

Mr. Delargy: My right hon. Friend speaks about urgency in these talks about peace. Are we still supplying arms to


Nigeria? Is there no urgency about stopping arms to Nigeria?
Secondly, these emergency supplies of food, and so on, cannot be supplied adequately by air. They must be sent by sea. We could do it. One battalion of British soldiers going to Port Harcourt or Lagos could solve the whole problem in a week. I hear an hon. Friend of mine talking about soldiers in Rhodesia. I do not think that that would solve anything. But we could stop the war in Nigeria in a week if the Government had any guts in the matter.

Mr. Thomson: I do not think the Government lack courage in the matter. The question is: what is the wisest course to bring about an end to the fighting there? I would emphasise to my hon. Friend that the right priority is to bring about a cease-fire—

Mr. Delargy: By sending arms?

Mr. Thomson: —and that is what our energies are directed towards.
With regard to the relief operation, perhaps my hon. Friend did not hear what I said in my statement when I emphasised that supplies had to go in overland if they were to go in in the requisite volume to meet the needs of the Biafran people. The removal of the obstacles to the land route lies not with ourselves or the Government in Lagos, but with the authorities in Biafra.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the great urgency of getting supplies in, and of the fact that the land routes are very difficult at the moment, would the right hon. Gentleman consider taking up the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend and offer to the International Red Cross a small mission from Transport Command? That is an extremely flexible Command, and I am sure that, given the problem, it can do much more to meet it than has been suggested on the other side of the House.

Mr. Thomson: I said that I should look carefully at the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. However, I emphasise again that at the moment air transport is not the problem. There is great suffering in Biafra. Mr. Richard Gallopin, the Executive Director of the International Red Cross, said

yesterday that a land route through Nigeria was the only way by which medical supplies could be brought to Biafra.

Mr. Barnes: What does it mean when Lord Shepherd speaks of "unnecessary deaths", which, if they took place, would then force Britain to stop supplying arms to Nigeria? Do not the thousands of deaths now taking place in Biafra from starvation mean that the point has been reached when the pledge that the Foreign Secretary gave in the debate must be honoured?

Mr. Thomson: I do not think that the suffering that is going on in Biafra can be met by the stopping of British arms supplies to Nigeria. That human suffering can best be met by the kind of constructive influence that Britain has brought to bear on the Federal Government in securing its co-operation in getting supplies there.
I ask my hon. Friend to apply his pressure in the right quarter. The present obstacle to helping the suffering people in Biafra is the Biafran authorities themselves.

Mr. Onslow: What efforts have been made to bring together the Nigerian and Biafran communities in this country so that they can be jointly associated in some practical way with the essential business of relief?

Mr. Thomson: The urgent need is to get the representatives of Nigeria and the Biafrans around a table in London. To that, all our energies have been devoted. The main place of co-operation for the communities in this country at the moment seems to be Downing Street on Sunday afternoons.

Mr. James Johnson: My right hon. Friend referred to the introduction of a Commonwealth observer force into Eastern Nigeria, and I hope that it will include Canadians and Indians. This is not only a war of weapons, but of propaganda. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we need not only the expression of safeguards here in London, but safeguards in the territory itself?

Mr. Thomson: We have taken the lead in saying that safeguards are necessary for the Ibo population and are ready to consider what part we can play in


any agreed Commonwealth force. I hope that we can all agree on that.

rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Following is the communiqué:
Talks between Major General Gowon, Head of the Federal Military Government and the British Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs, Lord Shepherd, took place in Lagos on Friday, Saturday and Monday, 21st, 22nd, and 24th June.
The main purpose of Lord Shepherd's visit was to deliver personally a letter from the British Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson, in reply to a letter from General Gowon, but this afforded an opportunity for a full frank and cordial exchange of views on the Nigerian situation. Lord Shepherd, whilst reaffirming the British Government's policy of support for the Federal Government, explained that an increasing number of people were apprehensive on humanitarian grounds of the possible consequences of further military operations. He emphasised the necessity of achieving a negotiated end to hostilities before the conflict reached a scale likely to cause greater suffering and loss of life to the civilian population.
The British Government were also considering what further practical steps they could take to help in relief operations in view of the widespread concern felt in Britain about the suffering caused by the war. In reply, General Gowon emphasised the need to preserve the unity and territorial integrity of Nigeria and expressed the compassion which his Government felt for all those to whom the war had brought suffering. He declared his determination to do all he could to bring relief to all affected throughout Nigeria. The Federal Military Government were always prepared to discuss the practical implementation of this policy with representatives of all organisations active in the field of relief.
General Gowon expressed his regret that the Kampala talks had broken down and confirmed his readiness at all times to explore ways of finding a solution at the conference table. He was prepared to send representatives to London or anywhere else to engage in informal discussions with the object of reconvening the peace talks in Kampala.
Lord Shepherd expressed satisfaction at this statement. He expected that the British Government would be pursuing the efforts to assist in arranging such discussions on his return to London. General Gowon reaffirmed that provided agreement was reached on ending secession and preserving a united Nigeria the Federal Government were agreeable to ceasefire arrangements involving an external observer force as a means of giving a sense of security to the Ibo people. He emphasised that responsibility he, personally, and the Federal Government felt for the safety and well-being of all Nigerians wherever they lived in the Federation.

CIVIL SERVICE (FULTON COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement. I apologise for its length, but the importance and complexity of the subject make this necessary.
The House will recall that on 8th February, 1966 I announced the Government's decision to appoint a Committee to examine the structure, recruitment and management, including training, of the Home Civil Service and that Lord Fulton had agreed to be Chairman of the Committee. The Report of Lord Fulton's Committee has now been received and is being published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
May I, first, Mr. Speaker, express the great appreciation of the Government to Lord Fulton and the members of his Committee for the thorough and devoted manner in which they have carried out their task and for the wide-ranging and fundamental review they have produced. It would also be appropriate here to mention the contribution to the work of the Committee made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).
When I announced the setting up of the Committee I expressed the hope that its inquiry would be in the great tradition of past inquiries such as those carried out by Northcote-Trevelyan in 1853 and the Tomlin Commission in 1931. I also expressed the hope that its recommendations would enable the Civil Service to meet the country's need for many years to come. I am sure that, when they have read the Report, hon. Members will agree with me that the Committee has fully justified the hopes placed in it and that we are all in its debt. I am confident that the Report will stand comparison with the historic Northcote-Trevelyan Report of more than a century ago.
Just as the Northcote-Trevelyan Report called for a replacement of patronage by a system of independent selection based on intellectual attainment, the Fulton Report, while reaffirming the continuation of independence in recruitment, finds that insufficient attention has been paid to management in the Service, and calls for


a new system of training, organisation and career management.
This Report is an essential contribution to the modernisation of the basic institutions of this country, including law reform, on which a strong start has been made. A vitally important further contribution will be the long overdue reform of local government which will follow the reports of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England and Wales, presided over by Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and the Royal Commission on Scottish Local Government, presided over by Lord Wheatley, two Commissions which are reviewing a system of local government which, in its main essentials, is largely unchanged since the latter years of the 19th century. The decisions of the Government and of this House on trade unions and employers associations, which will follow the consultations now in train as a result of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations presided over by Lord Donovan, will, of course, provide a corresponding degree of modernisation in another of our great Estates.
As hon. Members will see when they study the Fulton Report, it analyses in depth the present situation in the Government service and makes a large number of recommendations. Both the Report and its recommendations are being studied. I can, however, tell the House that, broadly speaking, we accept the analysis, though not every criticism it contains. As to the recommendations, here again, some of the detailed proposals will need very careful study, but the House will wish to know that the Government have decided to accept the main recommendations of the Report and to embark on the process of reform outlined by the Committee.
First, we accept the proposal to establish a new Civil Service Department on the lines advocated by the Committee and the steps to bring this about will be taken at the appropriate time. Specific and formal arrangements will be made to ensure the continued independence and political impartiality, within the new Civil Service Department, of the Civil Service Commission in the selection of individuals for appointment to the Civil Service.
Secondly, the Government have accepted the recommendation to set up a Civil Service College to develop the training of civil servants broadly on the lines recommended in the Report. The timing of this will, of course, have to be fitted into a programme which takes full account of public expenditure control.
Thirdly, the Government accept the abolition of classes within the Civil Service and will enter immediately into consultations with the Staff Associations with a view to carrying out the thoroughgoing study proposed by the Committee, so that a practicable system can be prepared for the implementation of the unified grading structure in accordance with the timetable proposed by the Committee.
This does not mean that the professions as such will disappear from the Civil Service; but it does mean that movement throughout the Service for them and for all civil servants at all levels will be unimpeded. This will mean that for everyone in the Civil Service, whether from school, whether from a college of technology, or from a university, whether he or she comes in from industry or from a profession—all in future, the school-leaver, the graduate, the accountant, the engineer, the scientist, the lawyer—for all of them there will be an open road to the top which, up to now, has been, in the main, through the Administrative Class.
Decisions on the remaining recommendations of the Committee will be announced in due course following the necessary full discussion with those concerned, including particularly, as I have said, the Civil Service Staff Associations.
The carrying out of the Committee's recommendations will involve additional cost, though the greater part of this extra expenditure will not arise until five years or more from now. The timing of the implementation of such recommendations will have to take account of this fact and will be related to the stringent public expenditure programmes which this House will be asked to approve in successive Estimates.
At the same time, the emphasis of the Report on efficient management and


economy within the individual Departments should ensure that additional expenditure on management and training will in time lead to substantial offsetting savings in the day-to-day operations of the Civil Service.
In this connection, the new Civil Service Department will have as its first remit the continuation of the work already being carried out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to achieve the targets for Civil Service manpower announced in my statement of 16th January last. I hope shortly to inform the House of further measures which are to be taken to ensure the fullest scrutiny and control of Civil Service manning.
The House and the public will wish to study the very detailed recommendations of the Report. These recommendations are designed to produce a Civil Service for the fourth quarter of the 20th century, which, while preserving the best of the old, is adequate in every way to deal with the problems of the fourth quarter of the 20th century. For example, in addition to the three main recommendations to which I have referred, hon. Members will welcome the Committee's desire for two way movement between the Service and other areas of our national life, such as private and public industry, local government and the professions.
There is one particular aspect of this which is implicit in the Report, but which Her Majesty's Government intend to make explicit in our actions in implementing the Report. This is the emphasis on regionalism. It will be our intention that new Civil Service recruits will be given abundant opportunities of working in the regions, and wherever possible in services which will bring them into direct contact with the public.
This emphasis on regionalism will inspire our approach to some of the comments on the machinery of government which hon. Members will find in the Report. Decisions on this will be taken when the Government have received and published the reports of the Royal Commissions on Local Government. On what the Fulton Report refers to as social administration, the Report of the Seebohm Committee on Local Authority Personal Social Services will also be highly relevant to changes in Government machinery so far as the social services are concerned.
I have said that many of the detailed recommendations will need careful study by the Government. In this, we shall need to take full account of the public reaction to the Report. But there is one issue on which the House will expect me to comment today. In recommending the transfer of responsibility for the Civil Service from the Treasury to a new Civil Service Department, the Report says:
The new department should be under the control of the Prime Minister. We hope that he will retain direct responsibility for senior appointments, machinery of government and questions of security. Outside this area, we suggest that the Prime Minister should delegate day to day responsibility to a non-departmental Minister of appropriate seniority who is also a member of the Cabinet.
I have asked my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is, of course, a member of the Cabinet with no Departmental duties, to undertake the duty of assisting me in the discharge of the functions recommended in the Report, to supervise the setting up of the new Department, and to control its day-to-day operations when established. My noble Friend will be engaged in this work from now on, and I propose in due course to inform the House, after consultations with the Opposition, about the arrangements which the House may find convenient for the tabling of Questions about the implementation of the Report and about other matters affecting the Civil Service. In the interim, Ministerial responsibilities and the arrangements for answering Questions will remain unchanged.
Mr. Speaker, it would not be right for me to end this statement without attempting briefly to put the Report of the Committee into perspective. The Report makes a number of criticisms of the present organisation and structure of the Civil Service. This was to be expected: had there been nothing to criticise, there would have been no need for the Committee to be set up. The reorganisation of the Service which will now take place will no doubt occupy a good deal of time in public discussion over the coming months. In our discussions, we would do well to remember that, whatever criticisms are levelled at the organisation, structure or methods of the Civil Service, including training and personnel management, the Committee has paid high tribute to the calibre, devotion and


competence of the staff and has pointed to the very considerable strengths of the Service which have, to some extent, obscured the need for reform, particularly the capacity of the Service for improvisation.
It is right and necessary that changes should now be made. It is, however, also right for us to pay tribute to the very able men and women at all levels in the Service who, with the highest standards of integrity and impartiality, have served the nation's interest under successive Governments so well for so long.

Mr. Heath: May I join with the Prime Minister in his tribute to Lord Fulton and his colleagues on the Committee and to the Civil Service? We will, of course, want to study the Report carefully. As this is a Report of such importance, as the Prime Minister said, the implementation of which will affect future Governments and the relationship of the Civil Service to Parliament, I hope that we shall have a debate about it shortly. Of course, we shall join with the Government in discussions about how Questions on the Civil Service should be handled.
As I understand, what the Prime Minister has said means that the management of the Civil Service is now taken from the Treasury and handed to a new Civil Service Department. If that is to be the case, the sooner we have consultations about the handling of Questions, so that they can come under the new arrangements, rather than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the more convenient that will be.
Does not the Prime Minister recognise that, although management and training for the Civil Service are immensely important, and although the reform of local government in Scotland and in Wales are also of great significance, they are all but one part of the changes which have to be brought about in the structure of government as a whole?

The Prime Minister: I readily agree that the House will want appropriate time to debate this very important Report. There will obviously be consultations through the usual channels about that. I cannot promise that it will be early, but in any case hon. Members will find that they have a vast mass of reading with the publication of four of the five volumes

which make up the Report, including the written evidence and the very important volume of the Management Consultancy Group's Report.
No exact time has been fixed for the transfer to the new Department which will be the responsibility of the Prime Minister with the help of my noble Friend. When that happens, the change in Questions will become operable, but it is too early at this stage to say what will be appropriate for the Transfer of Functions Order from the Treasury to the new Department.
I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is part, but only part, of the great modernisation requirement of our institutions, including regional government and including the machinery of government, as the right hon. Gentleman has said. Many of the most important and the most far-reaching decisions which will have to be taken, and which will be taken about the machinery of government, must also await the Report of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission on which, as the House would wish, we cannot place too much emphasis and which deals with the needs of regionalism in the operations of the Government and the Civil Service.

Mr. Sheldon: I thank my right hon. Friend for his generous remarks about the work of the Committee and I warmly welcome the early acceptance of the main recommendations of the Report, particularly the abolition of classes and the setting up of the Civil Service College and the Civil Service Department. Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of using the Greenwich site for the Civil Service College? Secondly, while awaiting the final decision on how Questions about the implementation of the Report are to be answered, will he consider the possibility of an annual report, to set out what progress has been made?

The Prime Minister: I hope, as the Committee did, that the Staff Training College for the Civil Service would be made available more widely than just for the Civil Service itself. The Greenwich site has been one suggestion which has been considered. I think that I made the suggestion myself. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that there are many competing claims for this valuable


and important piece of property. Certainly, it will be considered.
As for Questions and keeping Parliament informed, my hon. Friend knows better than most of us of the recommendation in the Report about a follow-up and the Committee's insistence that the Government, Parliament and the public should be satisfied about the speed, direction and methods of the follow-up. We shall have to consider the alternative proposals put forward by the Committee about how that should be looked at, whether by a further Committee, or by a Committee of the House, or in some other way.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although we shall need time to study the Report, we welcome the decisions which he has already announced, particularly the abolition of classes and the opening up of career opportunities for scientists and engineers in the Civil Service?
My first question is about the arrangements for secondment. The Committee said that it desired to see a two-way movement between the Service and other areas of our national life. Is it the intention to make arrangements so that civil servants can spend sabbatical periods in regional hospital boards, local authorities and the nationalised industries, for instance?
Secondly, does the Prime Minister realise that merely to send civil servants to the provinces is no substitute for devolution and the creation of regional authorities?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last comment. It is very important that civil servants should have the opportunity not only to see all parts of Britain from various regional centres, but to see London from the outside, not just seeing the outside from London.
As for secondment, what I call the two-way movement, I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the Report goes much further than the illustrations which he mentioned. It is envisaged that not only would there be a regular flow of recruits on a temporary basis from private and public industry, the universities, the professions, local government, finance and commerce, but also that

established career members of the Civil Service would be encouraged to work in industry and in local government, with appropriate safeguards of course, so that there would be a two-way flow of experience in these matters.

Mr. Woodburn: Did the Committee study, as I suppose it did, the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which carried out an investigation over which I had the honour to preside during the war and which recommended the establishment or organisation and methods departments, and the recommendation, now repeated, that the Civil Service should be placed under the Prime Minister's own charge, with a deputy Minister? Was there any reference to the Committee, presided over by Ralph Assheton—now Lord Clitheroe—after the war, on the education and training of civil servants, which produced a very fine report and did some very valuable work?

The Prime Minister: I think that when he studies the Report in detail, not least the Management Group's Report in its own volume, my right hon. Friend will find that the new thinking and the work which he has described was not only seized and used by the Fulton Committee, but followed up and vastly extended in its thinking. Many of the recommendations by my right hon. Friend and the Committee of the noble Lord Lord Clitheroe have been acted on by the Civil Service as it now is, particularly in relation to Organisation and Methods.
The Fulton Report calls for much more professional management at all levels, including economic management and business management within the Civil Service and for social management within the Civil Service. I think that my right hon. Friend will be impressed not only by the wealth of evidence, but by the Committee's conclusions on this subject.

Mr. Peel: In deciding about removing the management of the Civil Service from the Treasury to a new Civil Service Department, would the Prime Minister give consideration to removing the permanent service to this House and Parliament away from the Treasury and putting it under our control, the control of the sovereign Parliament?

The Prime Minister: That raises another question which was not dealt with in the Report, long though it is. I


understand that evidence has recently been given on this matter. That is something for separate consideration. It does not arise out of the Fulton Report.

Mr. Albu: May I add my thanks to those of other hon. Members to Lord Fulton and his colleagues for their extremely valuable Report? May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Report gives any support to the view sometimes expressed that Government policy is made by anonymous civil servants and that Ministers are merely their creatures?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not think that it gives any support to that view, because it would not be true under any Government. Any Minister who was sufficiently passive to have all his views formed for him by civil servants should not be a Minister for more than 24 hours.

Mr. John Hall: As one of a group of Members on this side of the House who, in an excellent pamphlet called "Change or Decay", five or six years ago, advocated many of the recommendations about which we have heard this afternoon, may I express my admiration for the work of the Committee and for the determination of the Government to give effect to its recommendations quickly?
In dealing with the question of secondment, is it recommended that opportunity be given for an exchange of places between the various colleges, both at the new proposed Civil Service College and the industrial colleges, so that industrialists can take places in the Civil Service college and vice versa?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the second question is, "Yes, certainly". It is intended that the college be organised in such a way that it can have a considerable number from outside the Civil Service. This will be of great help to the education of civil servants, and the other way round.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's pat on the back, as a former colleague on the Public Accounts Committee, I realise the deep interest which he has taken in these matters for a very long time and the authority with which he approaches these problems. I know how pleased he will be that we have moved out of the period of decay into a period of change.

Mr. Moonman: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend two questions. First, while waiting for a decision on the findings, would he consider obtaining advice from a number of organisations like the Tavistock Institute about the possibility of setting up one or two pilot schemes concerning management development and staff training within the Service? Secondly, does the published Report include a specially commissioned survey of attitudes between the Civil Service and the general public? It has been suggested that it might not.

The Prime Minister: I should need to look through the very long list of those who gave evidence to be able to answer my hon. Friend's question about the use of various expert authoritative bodies. He will be able to do that for himself. I should be very surprised if there were anyone who could give evidence on the subject who was not invited to give evidence, and on whom the Committee did not rely in producing its very authoritative Report.
With regard to what has been published, what my hon. Friend had in mind will appear in a volume yet to be published which will give a great deal of expert information which was furnished to the Committee on social questions, questions of attitude, and many others. However, I should like to check that before being sure about it.

Mr. David Howell: Will the new systems of organisation and management about which the Prime Minister speaks include new systems of management and accounting in Whitehall to replace the archaic and absurdly over-centralised system of financial control in the Treasury?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that that is dealt with in the Report, and I hope that he will agree with the Committee's recommendations. The Committee has not addressed itself to the detailed way in which public accounting should be undertaken because this is a matter of such vital importance to this House that it is for the existing Select Committees of this House.

Mr. Dalyell: On the question of the two-way movement between the Civil Service and public industry and the professions, does my right hon. Friend accept


that the complex matter of the trans-ferability of pensions is crucial? May we hear the Government's thinking on this subject at an early stage?

The Prime Minister: The transfer-ability of pensions is crucial in any system of secondment or two-way movement of this kind. It was dealt with very fully by the Committee. Its recommendation about pensions would involve an additional cost. That is why I said earlier that these matters, some of which would not be expected to materialise for several years, must be fitted into the general system of public expenditure control approved by the House. The question of pensions will have to be very carefully associated with the Government's decisions on pensions policy, including the transferability of pensions generally.

HOUSE OF LORDS (ABOLITION)

4.14 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the House of Lords.
Some of my best friends are in the other place. Nevertheless, few of us would deny that the present House of Lords is an indefensible anachronism as to both composition and powers. It has, as we all know, a theoretical membership of 1,000 or more. I think that it is the only institution in the world which can function only by mass absenteeism. Yet, with a membership of over 1,000, a quorum is three.
All the researches which I have been able to make show that there are over 10 nonagenarians and over 60 who are more than 80 years of age. Therefore, it could happen that three peers over 90 years of age, with ear trumpets and all, could be deciding the destinies of the nation. Only last week, an 80-year-old peer made his maiden speech. I suppose that he could be called a late developer —or perhaps a late inheritor. It is a fact that the hereditary Tory peer still dominates. As a method of ensuring quality, the hereditary principle is rather less selective than the methods adopted on a stud farm.
It is not surprising, therefore, that there is all-party agreement on the abolition of the right of peers to sit in Parliament solely by virtue of their titles. But if that is accepted, a lot of questions flow from it. What is to replace them? What are the functions of a different chamber to be? What are its powers to be? How is it to be elected or selected? What are the emoluments to be? What is to be the nature of the political party representation?
For months, the cardinals of the three political parties have been sitting in secret conclave while we, the poor, ignorant, inarticulate masses, are kept in suspense waiting for the puff of white smoke signifying that a new monster has been born and approved. It is this kind of secret consensus politics which is driving millions of people crazy with anger and frustration. Fortunately, by their


irresponsible and unprecedented behaviour in rejecting the Rhodesian Order, their Lordships have delivered us, albeit narrowly, from that particular evil.
This House does not know how near to final agreement those talks came, but there was certain disturbing rumours or leaks reported in the Press, and if any of them is even remotely accurate it would be strongly opposed by many of us on this side of the House. In any event, it is the strongly-held view of many hon. Members on this side that the contents of any agreement reached so far should be published so that we might judge how and in what way the Government's proposals differ from them.
In asking leave to introduce my Bill, I hope that no accusation will be made against me or any of my supporters that we are Communists or even fellow-travellers. On the contrary, the abolition solution has been urged over the years by some of the most illustrious figures in British political history—from the Duke of Wellington, Joseph Chamberlain, Winston Churchill, up to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It is daunting company, but no one could say that it was Communist.
It is well to remember that the now Lord President of the Council, writing in The Guardian on 8th February, 1963, stated:
Traditionally, the Labour Party is pledged to total abolition and single chamber government"—
But he went on to say:
Practically, we have known for years that this will not happen …
He continued:
The House of Lords should be reconstituted on the basis of life appointments and a decision to create no more hereditary titles.
Unfortunately, it is painfully clear that since those heady abolition days, the Labour Party has become more respectable, and respectful. Some would say far too much so.
It might be, and it has been said, that unicameral government means a stride towards totalitarianism. But other countries have adopted it. The Tory Government of New Zealand

abolished their second chamber. They now have single chamber government. There is single chamber government in Denmark and Finland. There is no evidence of any march towards dictatorship in those countries, so far as I can gather.
Moreover, for nearly 60 years we have had unicameral government in the whole area of finance, taxation and supply. Money Bills can neither be amended nor delayed by the Lords. But no one has suggested that we should go back to the pre-1911 days. Furthermore, we have effectively single chamber government whenever we have a Tory Government. This was admitted by Lord Alport in the debate in the House of Lords on 12th April, 1967, when he said, in effect, that, whether we like it or not, whether the Lords admit it or not, when there is a Conservative Government there is single chamber government.
Perhaps I might quote one or two examples. First, the Labour Government's Iron and Steel Bill of 1949, for which there was a clear mandate in 1945. The House of Lords spread 55 hours of debate over six months on that Bill. They did not vote against it, but it was delayed in its operation. Comparing that with 1953, when a denationalisation Measure was introduced, that was over in less than 20 hours of debate spread over five weeks. Taking the Third Readings of those two Bills, in 1949 the Third Reading took 4 hours 20 minutes. In 1953, the Third Reading took 25 minutes. Yet the Conservative majority in the House of Commons at that time was very small. In fact, at the 1951 election the Labour Party had more votes in aggregate over the country than had the Tory Party.
Another example is the Rent Act. There was no mandate for the Rent Bill in 1957. It was never mentioned in the Tory Party's election manifesto. But it was all over in four sittings in the House of Lords totalling 19 hours.
Taking the overall period of Conservative Government from 1951 to 1964, the average number of Government defeats in the Lords was between one and two per session. Recently, in 1964-65, for instance, there were nine defeats of the Labour Government, including one, which the House will recall,


on the War Damage Bill, when the Burmah Oil Company was claiming so many millions of pounds for having its assets destroyed. In that case, 143 peers voted against the Government. Anyone wanting the figures can get them from a speech that I made on that occasion when I put on record that those 143 peers had between them 415 directorships, and 38 were Burmah Oil shareholders.
Taking the calendar years in 1965 one finds that there were 10 Government defeats; in 1966, there were 14; in 1967, there were 25; and this year, to date, there have been 24, with a lot more to come. The most outrageous of these defeats was that on the Rhodesian Order. This was an attempt by the Tory Party leadership to use the House of Lords for their own party ends. They overlooked the fact that the bishops happened to be in town that day. I have looked up the figures. I am informed that 141 of the 193 who voted on it were hereditary peers and, in addition, that 36 were hereditary peers of the first creation. Of that total, 80 had neither spoken nor voted before in this Session and 41 had neither spoken nor voted in the previous Session.
If one takes the three dukes who voted against the Government in that instance, the Duke of Westminster took his seat in June, 1957 and was never seen again until the Rhodesian Order. The Duke of Atholl has been fairly active. Between 1955 and 1968 he has spoken on a variety of subjects: salmon, the game laws, birds' eggs, litter, Scottish sewerage, grey squirrels, venison—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member that he is introducing a Bill under the 10-Minute Rule.

Mr. Hamilton: I am coming to the end, Mr. Speaker.
I want to refer to the alternatives facing the House and the country today. First, we can agree that the status quo is all right. However, I do not think that many would accept that. Secondly, we can agree to some kind of reform of the second chamber. If we do that, we cannot separate from it the problem of functions and powers.
An elected Second Chamber, however elected, on a regional or any other basis, would be opposed because there would

inevitably be a clash concerning the respective powers of the two Houses. A nominated second chamber would be even more vehemently opposed because the patronage of government, and of the Prime Minister in particular, is a corrupting influence, corrupting both of the dispenser and of the recipient. If a second chamber were both nominated and salaried, the possibilities of corruption and increased patronage would be immeasurably greater. The more one considers this matter the more one is driven to the conclusion that abolition is the only solution.
Meanwhile, I urge the Government, as an immediate step, to abolish the delaying powers of the House of Lords and then set about the hereditary element.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) will not take it amiss if I say that I think the only case that he has made out has been for the abolition of the Ten Minute Rule Bill procedure. The hon. Gentleman has laid about him with a plethora of gestures and metaphors, including a very involved parallel between the Vatican and the Conservative Party. I can only say, at the conclusion of that, that in the hon. Member for Fife, West, Habemus Papem.
It is certainly true that, apart from Lord Salisbury, the hon. Member for Fife, West has the record for the number of times that he has spoken and written about the reform of the Upper House. Unhappily, I cannot associate the Prime Minister with that qualified tribute. The hon. Member for Fife, West has the courage of his convictions. I do not question the Prime Minister's courage, but I am dubious about his convictions. We do not know—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must speak to the Bill.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Member for Fife, West is at least clear about what he wants. He wants to sweep away the whole Upper House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have listened to a statement for the case in silence. We must similarly hear the case against.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Member for Fife, West wishes to sweep away the whole Upper House—dukes, bishops, coronets, ermine, Baroness Wootton and all—and cast them on the scrap heap.
That is not the policy of the Labour Party. I do not say that as a reproach to the hon. Gentleman. I say it purely as a statement of fact. Indeed, the fact that a Measure is not the policy of the Government is for me prima facie evidence in its favour. It will be interesting to see what hon. Gentlemen opposite do. Will they embrace the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), or will they cling to the hon. Member for Fife, West? It is an unenviable dilemma in which to be placed.
Having decided that the Upper House is to be destroyed, the immediate question to be answered is: what do we put in its place? The principal argument for retaining the House of Lords is precisely that, whatever defects it has, the schemes proposed to replace the present House of Lords are open to much graver objections.
First, the present Upper House is much better than a vacuum, which is what I gather the hon. Gentleman was suggesting. If a vacuum is created by abolishing the Upper House and putting nothing in its place one does not need prophetic gifts to see what will happen. The House of Commons will be even more overburdened than it is. We will get very much worse legislation than that which we have at the moment. The Executive will pass even further beyond control and the powers of party and the powers of Whips will be increased. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman, despite his recently acquired place in the Labour Establishment, wants to see the power of party increased.
The hon. Gentleman made much of ear trumpets and the like in the House of Lords, which we may all have to use when we come to the ear trumpet stage. Where are we to go at that point? It is better to wave ear trumpets in the other place than wave them on the pavement.
If there is not to be a vacuum, there will have to be a new second chamber,

and the difficulties of constructing a new second chamber are almost equally great. No other country has succeeded in establishing a theoretically satisfactory second chamber. If it is suggested as some have, that there should be salaried life peers who will be appointed by the Prime Minister of the day, a situation will be created in which the Prime Minister will have more powers of patronage than any Prime Minister since Walpole. If it is suggested that there should be an elected second chamber, it will have to be given real and extensive powers, and there will then be a clash between the Commons and the other place such as there is in the United States today between the Senate and the House of Representatives.
By no merit or skill of our own, but by an accident of history we have a second chamber which, while I agree is indefensible in theory, works reasonably well in practice. I do not cite as a particular of that universal the recent rejection of the Rhodesian Order, which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but if one looks at the Land Commission Act, for example, surely the improvements in that Act justified the existence of the other place? The House of Lords works because there is a combination of two principles which look contradictory, but are in fact complimentary, the hereditary principle, and the principle of life peerages. To use a contemporary fashionable phrase, the House of Lords has evolved.
There is one simple solution which will solve all the problems, and that is to limit the voting power of the hereditary members of the House of Lords, but not abolish it altogether. In place of the rash and revolutionary suggestion put forward by the hon. Gentleman, I put that forward as my own moderate and modest contribution.
The House of Commons, it has been said—it will surprise no one to know that it was said by Walter Bagehot— has more wisdom than anyone in it. I hope it will show this by rejecting the hon. Member's Motion. After all, we have not been so successful in reforming our own procedures that we can afford to lord it over the other place.
I hope, also, that it will be taken as a signal to the Prime Minister to resume


after his provoked tit-for-tat—I say provoked, not justified—the talks on the reform of the House of Lords which were about to bear fruit. After all, in the long run it is not the Prime Minister, nor the Leader of the Opposition, nor myself nor the hon. Member for Fife, West, who is important. It is Parliament that matters. Parties rise and fall, but it is Parliament that remains and abides, and Parliament consists not of one House but of two. I hope, therefore, that this House will strike a blow for Parliament today by rejecting this immoderate and ill-considered Bill.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a third speech in a debate under the Ten Minute Rule.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) put down an early day Motion relating to the abolition of the House of Lords
That this House believes the time is now ripe for the abolition of the House of Lords.
I support my hon. Friend's proposal, but not in toto, and I therefore tabled an

Amendment to it, in line 1, to leave out from first "House" to the end and to add instead thereof:
'congratulates the Crown and the Government on those recent appointments to the House of Lords of men and women who have earned distinction in British life; and believes that the time is now ripe for the abolition of the hereditary principle and for making the House of Lords, as a Second Chamber, truly representative of the scientific, cultural, artistic and business life of the British nation '.

In those circumstances, surely I should be allowed to say a few words?

Mr. Speaker: The simple answer is that the hon. and learned Member is not allowed to speak in this debate. He must have read, or taken part in, or listened to many debates under the Ten-Minute Rule. There are only two speeches—one for and one against—and they ought to be confined to about 10 minutes each. If they extend beyond that they encroach on other valuable time of the House.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at the commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 223.

Division No. 242.]
AYES
[4.37 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ellis, John
Kenyon, Clifford


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
English, Michael
Kerr, Mrs. Anno (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Barnett, Joel
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Baxter, William
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Lawson, George


Bence, Cyril
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Ledger, Ron


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lee, John (Reading)


Binns, John
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Booth, Albert
Gardner, Tony
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boston, Terence
Garrett, W. E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McKay, Mrs, Margaret


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffeths, Eddle
Mackintosh, John P.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McMillan Tom (Glasgow, C)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, William (File, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hannan, William
Mahon, Peter(Preston, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Coleman, Donald
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Manuel, Archie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hilton, W. S.
Marquand, David


Crawashaw, Richard
Horner, John
Maxwell, Robert


Cronin, John
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mendelson J. J.


Culfen, Mrs. Alice
Howie, W.
Mikardo, Ian


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Huckfield, Leslie
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moonman, Eric


Dewar, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Doig, Peter
Hynd, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Driberg, Tom
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Moyle, Roland


Dunn, James A.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Newens, Stan


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th A C'b'e)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oakes, Gordon


Eadie, Alex
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ogden, Eric


Edelman, Maurice
Judd, Frank
Orme, Stanley


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kelley, Richard
Oswald, Thomas




Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Richard, Ivor
Tomney, Frank


Pannel, Rt. Hn. Charles
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Park, Trevor
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Rose, Paul
Wilkins, W. A.


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Pavitt, Laurence
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Silverman, Julius
Woof, Robert


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Small, William



Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rankin, John
Symonds, J. B.
Mr. Albert Murray and




Mr. William Hamling.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector


Astor, John
Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant, Anthony
More, Jasper


Awdry, Daniel
Gresham Cooke R.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gurden, Harold
Murton, Oscar


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A G. F.
Neave, Airey



Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Batsford, Brian
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nott, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald(Gos, &amp; Fhm)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Biggs-Davison, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Heseltine, Michael
Pardoe, John


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Body, Richard
Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian


Bossom, Sir Clive
Holland, Philip
Peyton, John


Brewis, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornby, Richard
Pounder, Rafton


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bryan, Paul
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Campbell, B. (Oldham W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rhys, Williams, Sir Brandon


Clark, Henry
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clegg, Walter

Ridsdale, Julian


Cooke, Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Robson Brown, Sir William


Corfield, F. V.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Costain, A.P.
Kershaw Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kimball, Marcus
Royle, Anthony


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Kirk, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott-Hopkins, James


Currie, G. B. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sharples, Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Silvester, Frederick


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L' mington)


d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry)
Lewis, Kenneth (Ruthland)



Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Speed, Keith


Doughty, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Stainton, Keith


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Loveys, W. H.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Drayson, G. B.
Lubbock, Eric
Stodart, Anthony


Eden, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.(Ripon)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Emery, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Teeling, Sir William


Eyre, Reginald
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Temple, John M.


Fisher, Nigel
McMaster, Stanley
Tilney, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maginnis, John E.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Nell
van Straubenzee, W. R


Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Fraser. Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Vickers, Dame Joan


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mawby, Ray
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Gibson-watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wall, Patrick


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walters, Dennis


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ward, Dame Irene




Weatherill, Bernard
Wilton, Geoffrey (Truro)
Younger, Hn. George


Webster, David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.



Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas and


Williann, Donald (Dudley)
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Cranley Onslow.


Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Wylie, N. R.

Orders of the Day — PRICES AND INCOMES BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 3

INCREASE IN LENGTH OF STANDSTILL UNDER PRICES AND INCOMES ACT 1967 s. 1 OR 3

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have now published a complete list of selected Amendments. The first Amendment we come to is Amendment No. 15, with which we shall take Amendment No. 121, in page 3, line 3, at end insert:
(5) In the case of wage increases awarded solely on the principle of equal pay for equal work as set out in Convention 110 of the International Labour Office the standstill shall not apply.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) has asked me whether I would consider allowing a Division on Amendment No. 121. I am prepared to do so, if she asks for it at the time.

Mr. Keith Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 11, at end insert:
Except that no order shall be made where the Board determine that the effect of the award or settlement is solely to bring the pay of a worker or group of workers in line with other employees within the same company who are engaged on exactly the same work under the same conditions of service.
There are many workers in factories, shops and businesses who are on a lower rate of pay and take home at the end of the week lower earnings than workers in the same establishments doing exactly the same work. The most obvious example of this discrepancy is where men and women are working in the same establishment, doing the same work at very different rates of pay.
There are also minority examples, which would be covered by my Amendment, where there can be differential rates of pay based on age or reasons which may be historical, racial, or even possibly religious. I do not know. These minority reasons, although important, are not of great substance. Therefore, I

shall concentrate now on the big problem, that of the differential in pay between women and men. My Amendment seeks to stop the Government delaying or freezing an increase that could take place purely to bring women who are lower paid, but doing the same work as their male counterparts, more into line with the men in the company concerned. I understand that if a group of women or an individual woman wished to bring their pay more into line with that of men doing the same work there could be a delay of 2½ years under the Bill before any award could be implemented.
The International Labour Organisation passed Convention No. 100 on 21st June, 1951, paragraph 1 of Article 2 of which states:
Each member shall, by means appropriate to the methods in operation for determining rates of remuneration, promote and, in so far as is consistent with such methods, ensure the application to all workers of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.
Paragraph 2 states:
This principle may be applied by means of—

(a) national laws or regulations;
(b) legally established or recognisedmachinery for wage determination;
(c) collective agreements between employers and workers; or
(d) a combination of these various means."

Article 4 states:
Each member shall co-operate as appropriate with employers' and workers' organisations concerned for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Convention.
It is a matter of personal regret that neither the previous Conservative Government nor the present Labour Government have seen fit to ratify that Convention, notwithstanding the fact that 51 other countries, which are perhaps more enlightened in these affairs, have done so.
That is not the point at issue in the Amendment. More germane to the Amendment is the fact that in this country at the moment, if my researches are correct, only one in nine women who are working have the right to equal pay for work of the same standard and calibre in companies and organisations.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's arguments, particularly what he has said


about previous Governments and the present Government in relation to the I.L.O. Convention. For 15 years, within my own organisation, the A.E.U., we have been trying to achieve the male labourer's rate for women. The engineering employers have never conceded this point. So a third factor comes into this, and the hon. Gentleman ought also to address himself to that point.

Mr. Speed: I thank the hon. Member for his remarks. I shall be addressing myself to that point in a few moments, if he will bear with me.
The right hon. Lady the Minister is fortunate in that she does not have to accept a lower remuneration than her right hon. Friends in the Cabinet who are doing the same sort of work and have the same responsibility. I am not asking in the Amendment that equal pay for equal work should be implemented tomorrow. The Minister would have a hundred and one arguments why this is not possible. It is never the right time to talk about equal pay for equal work, for the reason that economic circumstances under any Government are always such that it is never the right moment to do so.
This also applies to employers; it is not, I agree, only a Governmental responsibility. It also applies to some trade unions who have, perhaps, not been so persistent in advocating equal pay for equal work as they might have been. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will accept, that we should be moving now to the stage where equal pay for equal work can be implemented, not tomorrow, but phased over a period, as was the case in the Civil Service when equal pay was introduced. It would be absolutely wrong for this or any Government by legislation to stop even those faltering steps towards equal pay for equal work, which is what I believe the Bill will do unless the Amendment is passed. It is particularly ironical this year, when we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of universal suffrage, that the Government should, by this Bill, be turning the clock back in respect of equal pay for equal work.
We have all for a long time paid lip service to the concept of equality between men and women. We have eminent and senior lady Ministers, lady

bank managers; the university unions are open more and more to women; but in the one thing which counts, which is remuneration at the end of the day, eight-ninths of the women in employment do not receive equal pay for equal work. I believe this, in 1968, to be uncivilised.
The Amendment proposes that, where a trade union or individual employees, by negotiation with their employers, establish that they are entitled to an award or an increase, to bring them more in line to equal pay for equal work—it may be the first faltering steps, or it may be an increase that would bring them into line—and this is agreed between the unions or the negotiating body and the employers, the Government should have no right or responsibility to say that this should not be done. For them to do so would be contrary to the spirit and the letter of the I.L.O. convention.
I do not wish to bring party politics into the argument; this is not basically a party political matter; but the House will remember that the right to equal pay for equal work was mentioned in the 1964 Labour Party election manifesto, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), when he was Minister of Labour. He said:
… the Government have already accepted the commitment in principle to equal pay."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 23.]
The right hon. Gentleman said this in answer to a Question, and he went on to say that a study was being set up to examine the technical problems between industries and unions, and that their report would have to be awaited. We may have to await their report, and I appreciate the problems of implementing the principle overnight, but it is surely wrong by Act of Parliament, by deliberate Government policy, where it is agreed between unions and employers, to suggest that steps towards equal pay for equal work cannot be implemented.
The Amendment puts the onus for determining whether it is a genuine move towards equal pay on the National Board for Prices and Incomes. We have heard from the right hon. Lady and from other Ministries about the reports of the Board, and how good it is at examining problems. This is an ideal problem for it to examine, to determine


whether it is a move towards equal pay for equal work, or mainly a dodge to get round the legislation when it is passed.
If a man is earning the correct amount of remuneration for the work that he is doing, a woman doing the same work should receive the same remuneration. If the Government argue that women should not be advancing towards that level, the concomitant of that argument is that the men should have their wages reduced, since, presumably, their wage rates or earnings are too high.
Provided that the conditions mentioned in the Amendment are satisfied, that is to say, that the workers are employed under the same conditions of service—this is important because fringe benefits, and so on, vary between companies—and within the same company, and provided that the Board is satisfied that it is a genuine move towards equal pay for equal work, it should be exempted from the standstill powers in the Bill.
I have a great deal of sympathy with Amendment No. 121. The principle and motive lying behind it also lie behind my Amendment. I have tried to include in my Amendment the small minority who could be discriminated against for various reasons such as race, age, and so on, since it is important that this should not operate purely in the man/woman situation. I have also tried to be specific about companies and equal conditions of service, although this is not covered by the I.L.O. Convention. I have tried to be reasonable and to help the Government by establishing that the Prices and Incomes Board would determine the validity of such a wage claim.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I presume that my hon. Friend would not extend this principle to a personal employer who is not a company or a partnership?

Mr. Speed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; indeed I would. It may be a matter of drafting, but the Amendment should cover all persons in employment.
It seems to me that the present situation of eight-ninths of the female working population being effectively second-class citizens is morally wrong, is way behind most civilised countries and is economically wrong for the reason that where there are very low wage rates for

work in a number of industries that hon. Members will probably be aware of, and, also, where a privileged number of men are paid higher wage rates for the same work, this does not help productivity and does not provide a proper pattern of remuneration within those industries.
5.0 p.m.
I hope that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment, because it will not, by itself, unleash a flood of wage claims tomorrow. The intention is not to implement equal pay for equal work overnight in the present economic circumstances, but the way should be made clear and we should not legislate against it, particularly since a two-and-a-half year delay would be involved before any wage award towards equal pay could be implemented. This would be quite wrong.
If the Amendment is accepted, I shall be happy. If it is not, I hope that hon. Members will support me in the Lobby. If they reject the Amendment, I would remind them that, 2,300 years ago, at the time of the Peloponnesian Wars, Lysistrata gave an example which the wives of hon. Members who vote against the Amendment would be well advised to follow—[Laughter.] I say no more. I hope that they will accept the Amendment, since it is not designed to embarrass them or to provoke a fresh flood of inflationary claims. It is designed to give some hope to eight-ninths of the female population who are working and it is in step with the spirit and the letter of the I.L.O. Convention which I hope that we will be able to ratify before long.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I beg to move Amendment No. 121—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Lady will have to wait until we reach that Amendment on the Order Paper. She can only speak to it at the moment. The debate is on Amendment No. 15. We may discuss Amendment No. 121, but if she wishes to divide on it, she will have to move it formally in its place on the Paper.

Mrs. Jeger: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your helpful guidance. There is a clerical error in Amendment No. 121, for which I take full responsibility. It


should refer to Convention 100 and not Convention 110 of the International Labour Office.
This Convention has been signed by over 50 countries. There must be many people here today who wonder what there is wrong with our country that we have found it impossible to sign this modest Convention when so many of our friends have done so. Equal remuneration for equal work is implicit in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and was one of the points included in the draft Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women to which I had the honour of giving Her Majesty's Government's assent when I was the United Kingdom delegate on the Status of Women Commission last year.
I need not remind my right hon. Friends that the Labour Party Manifesto at the last Election stated categorically:
Finally, we must move towards greater fairness in the rewards for work. That is why we stand for equal pay for equal work, and to this end we have started negotiations.
I went to the Library last night to look at the HANSARD references to those negotiations. I will not weary the House with them, because I could not see "owt" beyond the pile of HANSARDS with references to assent and meaningless support for this aspiration. I was surrounded by a wall of words.
When we are being asked to give our support to a rational incomes policy, it is completely unrealistic and almost dishonest of my right hon. Friends not to include within their strategy for the last half of the twentieth century a downright and absolute provision for equal pay. It is impossible for the Government to persuade us that we are really providing for a national incomes policy which should be acceptable to all fair minded men and women when it has a built-in discrimination against a third of the working population.
The T.U.C. in the last century laid down in a resolution that where women do the same work as men they should receive equal pay. It is disappointing and appalling that 80 years on, when we are discussing a Bill which is supposed to rationalise incomes, we still find resistance to a nineteenth-century T.U.C. resolution. I am defeated in searching for

some face of modernity on the Front Bench.
I feel all the more strongly because last night, by a small majority to which I contributed nothing, the House passed the Clauses covering penal sanctions against trade unionists and employers in connection with breaches of the incomes policy. I will ask my right hon. Friend, first, this question. If some group of women in a firm with perhaps a rather nicer man than usual for an employer manages to achieve some measure of equal pay, will she then prosecute them under the Bill? Unless my Amendment or No. 15 were accepted, it seems that some legal brain somewhere could bring within the penal sanctions an increase in pay awarded to women solely in terms of the principle of equal pay, in accordance with the Labour Party Manifesto, the T.U.C. resolution in the 1880s, the I.L.O. Convention and the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. We must have an answer to that.
Neither of the Amendments is mandatory. They allow consultations. Of course we accept this. Women are much more sensible than men about these things. With our realism, we know better than to expect equal pay next week. There was a phasing in the teaching profession and the Civil Service, I remember, over seven years. If we could get some commitment from the Government on that kind of definite time period, we would feel that we had made some headway, but so far we have had nothing but words.
The Bill makes the situation much more difficult. It ossifies all the generations of prejudice. It provides no opening whereby women can get equal pay purely for the reason of equal work. These are very complicated subjects and I do not want to denigrate the hours and hours of consultation which have gone on among the T.U.C, the employers and what used to be the Ministry of Labour. Possibly at the heart of the problem is the fact that, in this country, we do not have a sensible wages policy and I am glad that my right hon. Friend is trying to get somewhere near that.
One of the most impressive books which I have read on this subject was Barbara Wootton's book, "The Social Foundation of Wage Policy", in which Lady Wootton worked out that, when she


was a professor at Bedford College, she earned slightly less than the elephant in Regent's Park Zoo. This is a measure of the standards of society in working out what are adequate returns for worthwhile work.
We have in my right hon. Friend a woman who is deeply concerned with social justice and with endeavouring to ensure, as far as she can, that women get a fair deal. Nobody knows better than she does, representing a cotton constituency, the tremendous value to the country as well as the families concerned, of the work of the women in that industry, as in so many other industries. I plead with my right hon. Friend not to let the Bill make a gorgon of her, turning into stone, before Perseus arrives to save her, the modest hopes and aspirations of thousands of hard-working women.
Obviously my right hon. Friend will tell the House that nobody will be sent to prison for implementing the doctrine of equal pay. I hope that she will spell out a little more fully the Government's attitude to the problem. If she says, "Of course no one will go to prison for granting equal pay", there is no reason for her not to accept one of these two Amendments. If she says, "I will give my sanction. I will not exclude from salary increases rises given within this principle", there is nothing to quarrel about and nothing to divide the House about. The Bill can be improved in this way and women will hail my right hon. Friend as the first Boadicea we have had on the Front Bench for a very long time.
It is supposed to be part of the incomes policy that there should be a special tenderness and protection towards lower-paid workers. Who are the lower-paid workers? A Government survey recently made it clear beyond a peradven-ture that the lower-paid workers are synonymous with the word "women". Out of 8 million women workers, just over half earn less than 5s. an hour. If that is not low-paid, I do not know what the Government criterion for low-paid is. Only one woman in 30 earns 10s. an hour. Therefore, across the whole range of women's wages there is a gross underpayment. There are millions of women who, by any criteria, must be included in the very general phrase "lower-paid workers".
There are many subtle and complicated reasons for this. Some of them are referred to in the Donovan Report. Part of the trouble is that women sometimes exclude themselves, and sometimes are excluded by circumstances, from the sort of training that would enable them to take better-paid jobs. After all, boys and girls at school are on about the same level, as far as one can tell. However, after school only about 7 per cent. of girls go in for apprenticeships, mostly in hairdressing, whereas 45 per cent. of boys go in for apprenticeships or for some form of training.
So there is a built-in liability in the matter of lack of skill. That accounts for part of the lower wage average for women. This is not a complete alibi, as my right hon. Friend will be the first to admit. There are many jobs requiring great skill which women do but which, because the jobs are done by women, automatically carry a rate less than would be paid if the jobs were done by men. There are, for instance, very skilled girls in the pottery industry who do very fine decorative work on china which goes for export. These girls are paid a basic rate of 2s. 2½d. an hour. The men who sweep the floor are paid more than they are.
Therefore, I shall not take from my right hon. Friend or from anyone else the proposition that the low level of women's pay is due to our lesser skill. During the war it was suddenly found that women were able to do jobs which nobody had previously thought they could do. If the job that the striking women at Fords were doing was done by men, we should have been told, and the unions would have decided years ago, that it was so skilled that it needed seven years' apprenticeship and was worth £30 a week to sew a seat cover. So there is this other aspect that, if women do a job, the chances are that there is a built-in reduction in pay.
5.15 p.m.
I remind my right hon. Friend of the relevance of what I am saying to an incomes policy. While one-third of the total labour force—about 8 million women—are underpaid in this way, the whole basis of the wages structure is being deformed. A vast element of underpaid labour is being built into the


wages structure, and this is bound to pull down the whole level of wages throughout industry.
I do not raise this as a feminist issue. I raise it as an issue of social justice. I raise it in the interest of my men friends, because, although male workers are very sensitive to ensure that, for instance, immigrant workers do not take on jobs at lower rates, they seem to accept far too glibly that women should go on for years being paid less than the rate for the job, not realising that this is undermining their position in the mammoth structure of the incomes policy which is being erected.

Sir Edward Brown: Does not the hon. Lady agree that, since the House has no division between men and women and equal pay is operated here, it is a little strange that the House, which must make the decision, is so backward in its general approach to this issue?

Mrs. Jeger: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but the Conservative Government were not any better. We have equal pay in the House of Commons. Most of the professions operate equal pay. What about the other women who work in the House? I asked a Question recently which elicited the information that in the Refreshment Department the women are paid 30s. a week less than the men, on average. Therefore, we must not be too cosy about what goes on in the Palace of Westminster.
This is another reason why I think that this principle should commend itself especially to a compassionate Labour Government. We are talking about poor women. It was in some ways a pity that the Equal Pay Campaign Committee wound itself up some years ago when equal pay was achieved for professional women, for the articulate women, for the well-off women. These represent only 10 per cent. of women at work. We are talking about the 90 per cent. of poor women.
I should not have spoken at such length had there been any sign of an improvement in this situation, but, much to my regret, the contrary is the case. The figures that I have been able to turn up show that the gap between the wages of men and women in industry is slightly widening.
There is no evidence that it is drawing closer. I asked a Question which had a Written Answer on 29th November, 1967, from which I discovered that the difference between the average of men's and women's pay in April, 1966, was £10 6s. 7d. and by April, 1967, the difference had increased to £10 7s. 5d. I got the hourly rate and found that in 1966 the difference was 3s. 6½d. and in 1967 that had gone up to 3s. 7d. These in themselves are not large sums, but they represent an appalling tendency. We had hoped that any change would be towards a lessening of the gap. Many of us would have felt much more satisfied, and perhaps less concerned to make this point so fully today, had there been evidence of a closing of this gap.
My right hon. Friend has a difficult job and I do not think trade unions have always been as active as they could have been on this subject. I am glad that there is now some sign of a livelier appreciation of the problems.

Mr. Orme: I agree with what my hon. Friend is saying, but ought she not to make an appeal to women to join trade unions as this is one aspect which has held back the reforms which she wants?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must point out that the hon. Lady is getting very wide of the Amendment. I do not want to stop the debate on equal pay, but we must keep to the Amendment.

Mrs. Jeger: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Amendment No. 121, which would provide for equal pay, would have made it possible when the trade unions were negotiating at Ford's last year to refuse to accept an agreement under which, within the same grade, women were paid 85 per cent. of the men's rate. I am not talking about women doing different jobs. Within the same grading there was an overall agreement to which at that time the unions were party which provided that where women did the same work they should be paid only 85 per cent. for the job. It is that kind of discrimination which these two Amendments would put right.
I appreciate all the difficulties the Government have to face. I know that we shall be told that this will cost a lot of money. There have been various estimates of what it would cost. I think


the most fashionable figure is £600 million. Whatever it cost would not be a measure of the expense to the country but a measure of the forced subsidy which women's labour gives to employers at present. It is women workers of the country from whom this money is being withheld. I think they are beginning to see this increasingly.

Mr. Philip Holland: Before the hon. Lady frightens her right hon. Friends too much about the costs of bringing in equal pay, I am sure that she would want to make the point that these Amendments by themselves would not increase costs at all. The would merely make it possible for a slow creep towards this reform. The cost in any one year would be very small, but it would be a slow movement in the right direction.

Mrs. Jeger: I thank the hon. Member. In these Amendments we are not asking for equal pay tomorrow but that we should move towards it and that we should not allow the Bill to go through with its implicit ossification of a situation in which there is not equal pay. If the Bill goes through as it is, it will provide an alibi for every employer, and an excuse for every idle trade union leader —if there is such a person, although I am sure there is not, but some are livelier than others.
This situation has become very much more serious because of advances in science, technology and automation. All the old divisions between men's work and women's work are being gradually eroded. Science has taken the brawn out of industry. There will be a much wider spectrum of employment for women in all forms of industry. We can push a switch down as well as any man can. If men do not see that underpaid women can push a switch down as well as a man can they are lacking prescience.
I ask my right hon. Friend to give the fullest possible consideration to these Amendments and not to feel that she is being asked to be too brave about it. After all, we are only asking her to go as far as the T.U.C. did in the 1880s. She has the strength of the National Executive of the Labour Party in its preparation of the last General Election manifesto to lean back on. She has the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights to pray in aid, and the International Labour Office to give her a helping hand. I think she has the courage and vision and that it would not be for her to resist such a spectrum of support, especially as apparently it has been widened to include both sides of this House.

Dame Joan Vickers: I congratulate the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) on the very good case she has made and the excellent manner in which she put it forward. I am certain that she will have the sympathetic ear of her right hon. Friend, because when the right hon. Lady was on this side of the House she was particularly eloquent on this subject and expressed herself equally well on it, and I am sure there must be accord on this.
This is the fiftieth anniversary of Votes for Women, and it is a very good time to accede to these Amendments. It took a long time to get the vote, and then a long time to have the age at which women can vote reduced from 30 to 21. We all have [earned to be patient in this House, but we have waited a long time for this advance. We hope that the Minister will consider it.
In addition to being a Member of this House, as Chairman of The Status of Women Commission I represent 21 women's organisations, some of them were formed many years ago. They each have their particular objects, but they meet together on the idea of working for equality for women and one of their objects is to obtain equal pay for equal work. Not since the match girls' strike of 1888 has a group of women pressed strike action so militantlyas now at Ford's and the strange thing about Ford's is that Ford's in America give equal pay for this work, so it seems extraordinary that we cannot persuade them to do so in this country. I ask the right hon. Lady to consider this proposal on the lines of the American minimum wage legislation as that would be a great help.
If we enter the Common Market we shall have to accept the Treaty of Rome. It contains two Articles, No. 111 and No. 119, which deal with discrimination and equal pay and these Articles we would have to observe. I give the right hon. Lady an example of what can happen in


this concerning the Admiralty. In the Royal Armament Depot, Devonport, 19 women were engaged on a very difficult job with shells and they had to wear special protective clothing. These 19 women were suddenly dismissed at short notice. They complained to me and when I inquired into the matter I discovered that they had been engaged on terms of equal pay with the men. However, there was a secret agreement between the trade unions and the Admiralty—all the workers concerned were members of trade unions—to the effect that when men were available the women would be dismissed. This seems an extraordinary way for trade unions to behave, presumably they had principles in regard to pay and I suggest that that principle should apply to all. Employers should abide by the same principles.
5.30 p.m.
A few years ago, when I was a member of what was then the L.C.C., there was a great demand for equal pay for a great many women in the professions. I played some part in that demand. Now, it seems, women in the professions must fight for the lower-paid workers who are often more in need of equal pay than women earning higher salaries.
Some progress has been made in this direction without disturbing either labour relations or prices. For example, women workers in the engineering trade now get 92 per cent. of men's wages—in 1962 they received only 67 per cent. of men's wages. In the paint and varnishing trade women now receive 72 per cent. of men's wages, whereas previously they were getting 67 per cent. It is on this basis that I support the Amendment. We want women's wages to increase gradually in the next few years, until equal pay is secured, if we cannot get equal pay straight away.
Some decision too must be made about the difference of opinion that exists between the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. on this question. I understand that the T.U.C. wants equal pay for equal work of equal value while the C.B.I. wants the same pay for identical work. We must get this difference straightened out because it has always been put forward as one of the difficulties in the way of arriving at agreements for women's wages. I hope that the Minister will give us some encouragement and will at least agree to put

the matter before the N.B.P.I., with the result that perhaps women will receive an increase of more than 3½ per cent. until they get equal pay with men.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not the purpose of the Amendment to put the matter before the Board. The hon. Lady must address her remarks to a request for including the Amendment in the Bill, which she has not done so far.

Dame Joan Vickers: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope enough has been said by hon. Members to persuade the Minister to look very closely indeed at the principle of the Amendment.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mrs. Lena Jeger) made such a devastating case for equal pay that virtually nothing need be added to what she said. A pamphlet which I have with me asks two questions; first,
Are you for equal pay but against its introduction at the present time? 
and, secondly,
Do you think the financial condition of the country is too serious to justify the introduction of equal pay at present?
This pamphlet was printed 18 years ago, at the time of the campaign for equal pay for women in the Civil Service. That campaign was successful for the clerical section of the Civil Service, but the same questions are being asked today. The attitude of many people is sympathetic, but too many of them are saying that this is not the right time to introduce it. I suggest that, far from being the wrong time, it is precisely the right time to embody provisions in favour of equal pay in the Bill. That is why I support the Amendment.
My right hon. Friend is probably wondering what has hit her, as suddenly, from all sides, she is being bombarded with demands for equal pay. It is because we have the rudiments of an incomes policy that so many requests are now coming forward. Women in employment are studying the incomes policy and are wondering why they have been left out of it. Indeed, it is a travesty to leave women out of it in this way.
This is the right time to introduce equal pay because women are the lowest of the low paid workers. They therefore have a special right to consideration now. Among my correspondents—I have had


masses of it on this subject—from women, many of whom are not normally articulate about their rights, is a letter from a woman who is employed in the toy industry and who writes that she gets 3s. 10¾d. an hour. This is a slave wage for any woman living under modern conditions and with the same expenses as a man.
Another reason for urging my right hon. Friend to accept that this is the appropriate time to deal with this matter is the fact that if it is not dealt with now, when the economic situation becomes easier it will be more difficult for women to catch up. Indeed, precisely the reverse will happen in view of the pent-up wage demands that will be made by all sections of industry. Because women are weaker in the economic sense, they will tend to go to the wall and the differential between men's and women's rates of pay will increase even further at the end of the period of severe restraint—that is, unless statutory action is taken to ensure that this does not happen.
As we are trying to create a just economic structure, women must be included in that structure on an equal rights basis. This is, therefore, the only possible time at which to take action if we are not to put the clock back for many years when the incomes policy comes to an end.
Although reference has been made to the cost of giving equal pay to women by the Amendment or some other means, nothing has been said about the question of productivity. An estimate was made in Sweden that if full use were made of all the available female labour, the national income of that country could be increased by 50 per cent. to 60 per cent.
Nobody knows what the increase in productivity might be in this country if women felt that equal pay was on the way. They would have that feeling if the Amendment were accepted. That would happen directly, by getting equal pay, and indirectly, because many of the industries in which women work at such low rates are so inefficient and out of date that the mere fact of having to give equal pay would make them modernise and thus increase their productivity.

Sir Douglas Glover: I am listening with great interest to the hon.

Lady's argument, but I see nothing specific in either of the Amendments about equal pay. All they provide is that if someone can be persuaded to arrange for equal pay—and there is nothing in the Clause to persuade anybody—the matter will not have to be subject to Order or be referred to the Board, and there will not have to be a two or three years' wait for its report. It is only a tiny crack in the door.

Mrs. Butler: It is a tiny crack in the door, but of vital importance. This is the point we make to my right hon. Friend. She may want to widen the crack in the door. I do not think that she does, but we should welcome it if she did. Our case is that it is important to make this crack in the door now. The mere doing of it would have an electrifying effect on women workers in this country. They would realise that something was being done and that the situation was steadily improving.
If my right hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendments—I realise that they have been rather sprung on her, and there may be difficulties of wording and so on—I would ask her to find a means of writing into the Bill, perhaps in a new Schedule, an instruction to the Prices and Incomes Board to phase the introduction of equal pay over a period of five or seven years, or whatever period she cares to choose. I realise that I am out of order in saying that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have said it, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reply on the point.
What we say to my right hon. Friend is that, if she does not like what we suggest, will she nevertheless realise that this is a serious issue? It is not a gimmick. It is not something thought up on the spur of the moment. There is a real problem here, and now is the time for an answer to it to be embodied in this Bill.

Mr. Gower: I am disappointed that the Minister has not already intervened to say that she accepts the broad principle of these Amendments, a principle which one would expect her to find extremely attractive.
I acknowledge the validity of the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), and by the hon. Lady for Holborn and St. Pancras, South


(Mrs. Lena Jeger) in support of her Amendment 121. Equal remuneration for equal work has been accepted as a principle by bodies as dissimilar as the United Nations, in its Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Labour Office, in its Convention 100 to which the hon. Lady referred. What is more, it was accepted by Resolution of this House in the early 1950s. On that occasion, the debate was initiated by a Labour Member, and the principle was broadly accepted by the House.
The question of cost, to which oblique reference has been made, is almost entirely irrelevant. Acceptance of my hon. Friend's Amendment 15 or of the principle alone would not entail immediate or even early implementation of equal pay for equal work. But rejection of the Amendments or of the principle behind them would amount to notice by the Government that even modest advances towards implementation of that principle would constitute offences against the Bill. This is a far more serious matter than, perhaps, some of the speeches have implied.
I appreciate that immediate introduction of the principle of equal pay is not possible. It would certainly be most inconvenient, and in some industries the consequences would be really injurious. A long time is needed to give people notice of its possible impact and to enable firms which have entered into long-term contracts to make the necessary adjustments. It is not an easy thing to do abruptly. But, as I have said, refusal by the Government to accept either of the Amendments or the principle underlying them would mean that small steps towards equal pay would not be made and, what is more, they would become statutory offences.
5.45 p.m.
The hon. Lady the Member for Hol-born and St. Pancras, South said at one point, and I agree, that her Government and our Government were both at fault, perhaps, in not introducing the principle more forcefully in industry. But if the Bill is enacted in its present form, the position will be worse than it is now or was under our Government In those days, it was possible for modest advances to be made towards equal pay. Until

recently, it was lawful for firms and unions to make agreements which would advance towards the principle. Rejection of the Amendments would be notice to the women of Britain that the Government would use the machinery of this Bill for a purpose for which it was never intended or devised. I cannot believe that the Bill was drafted partly with the object of thwarting the principle of equal pay. Nevertheless, it could be a convenient vehicle to achieve that purpose, and refusal to accept the principle of the Amendments would amount to notice to the women of Britain that the Government would use the Bill to that end, which would be a most improper thing to do.
In these circumstances, and subject to the extension which I urged earlier, that the principle should cover employers of all kinds, not merely companies but individuals, partnerships and public authorities, I hope that both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend will press the Amendments to a Division. I shall support them on both occasions.

Dr. Shirley Snmmerskill: Both these Amendments puts Members on this side in a great political dilemma. How can we reconcile support of the prices and incomes policy—

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Many of us do not support it.

Dr. Summerskill: —with rejection of Amendments which embody Labour Party policy? Whichever way we look at it, whether we consider Amendment 15, which is more specific and more easily implemented, or Amendment No. 121, which reiterates the principle of equal pay which has had lip-service from both main parties for many years, the Amendments, if incorporated in the Bill, would drive a horse and carriage through the Government's incomes policy.
Amendment 15 would make it possible to introduce phased equal pay for women in a way which nothing in the Bill would allow. Even the most ardent advocates of equal pay—and I hope that I am one— would agree that it cannot be introduced overnight. The very fact, which we accept, that it would cost £600 million and cripple the economy, however, is a measure of the contribution made by working women today. That is the amount by which women are being exploited and the


amount for which the British economy depends on their work. We do not even ask for the pay to be retrospective.
Only when women go on strike, as they have recently, is the issue taken seriously. Hitherto, it has been a subject for the women's columns of the newspapers. But now we see the editorials dealing with the question of equal pay, and the industrial correspondents and financial and City writers are taking it seriously. I hope that this debate will have maximum publicity in the country.
Simply to get the Government and my right hon. Friend out of what is obviously a very difficult and embarrassing position for them today, would she give us a clear and concise statement of the positive rather than the negative intentions of the Government on equal pay, at the end of this short debate? If she is unable to accept the Amendment, as is no doubt the case, let us hear categorically that equal pay will be introduced in stages. Let her state a target date for this—say, 1971.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady can only ask the Minister to reply to the Amendment. The Minister would be out of order if she went into the policy statement for which the hon. Lady asked.

Dr. Summerskill: If my right hon. Friend cannot accept Amendment No. 121, she should at least tell us that she will allow women's wages slowly to approach those of men where they are at present unequal, and the men in their turn must be prepared to hold down their wages to some extent.

Mr. Orme: No. There is no need for that.

Dr. Summerskill: No prices and incomes policy can be fair when there is absolutely no mention of equal pay in it or in the Bill. It is clear from all the speeches we have heard that this is a Case of cheap labour being used, where the discrimination is more severe and humiliating than any other type of discrimination that exists against women.
It is only because of the brave and courageous speech of a solitary hon. Member opposite who raised the subject and the women on this side of the House that the whole subject is being debated

today. Otherwise, the Bill would have been enacted with no mention of it. Equal pay can no longer be left to change agreements. Legislation is required.
The history of equal pay is long and tedious. As long ago as 1946, a Royal Commission sat. If my right hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment, I implore her not to resort to more Committees, more reports and more working parties, on one of which I am sitting at present, with interminable discussions.
The time has come for action. Let my right hon. Friend make history—I am sure that she would like to do that —by being the Minister in the present Labour Government who was responsible for the phased introduction of equal pay for women. She would be honouring an election pledge and at the same time be seeing to it that the prices and incomes policy is really fair and just.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): It might be useful to the House if I intervene at this stage, because, apart from anything else, much of the debate is taking place under a very serious misunderstanding about the operation of prices and incomes policy in relation to equal pay and about the exact implications of the Amendments. Moreover, I have been called upon by both sides of the House to make the Government's position clear. I hope that I may be able to help the House and perhaps shorten the debate.
It is always refreshing to hear a man declare that discrimination against women is morally wrong, and it is also refreshing to hear a Conservative Member quoting the Labour Party election manifesto in support of his Amendment. It is fascinating to me to see how anxious hon. Members opposite are to rush in and support my hon. Friends in battles that they would never wage against their own Government. We have had a very touching demonstration of unity on this issue this afternoon.
My hon. Friends, whose case has been put so well by the three hon. Ladies who have spoken, have a much greater right to quote Labour Party policy at me. I was very impressed not only by the sincerity of their concern on the issue,


with which they will understand that I have every sympathy in the world, but also the extremely balanced way in which they urged their case. I have not heard anyone who spoke this afternoon claim that we could have the introduction of equal pay in this country overnight. On the contrary, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), in moving his Amendment, disclaimed any such attempt, and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) said that women are realists and know that they will not get equal pay tomorrow. I should remind my hon. Friends, if they need to be reminded, that the party's election manifesto, which they quoted in aid of their Amendment, also speaks in terms both of moving towards the fulfilment of the principle and of the necessity for negotiations along the way.
I appreciated the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) put her point. She recognised that this was a question rather of phasing in, as a number of people have said. That is the kernel of our discussion.
I want us first to be quite clear what the Bill does and does not allow, and what the Amendments say. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Meriden say that the Bill stops even faltering steps towards equal pay. If that were true, my hon. Friends would have very good grounds for alarm and anger. I think that, quite genuinely, my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman do not understand what their Amendments say —and it is the Amendments that we are discussing. It is not true to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman did, that either of the Amendments is necessary to ensure that a phased move towards equal pay can take place. It is not true to say that if they are not passed it will be impossible to move towards the implementation of equal pay under the Bill.
The Amendments would enable increases to take place that were not phased, and the Government would be powerless to do anything about it. If the words are studied with great care, it is clear that that is their meaning and effect. They say that if a group of workers negotiated a pay agreement based on existing differentials between rates for men and for women, and had

their agreement cleared under the criteria of the policy because they had concentrated on devoting the yield of productivity entirely to improving pay within existing relativities, the workers could then say, "We have to think of the poor women now. Now we negotiate an agreement for equal pay and slap that on top." [Interruption.] If these Amendments were passed—

Mr. Orme: What about the shop workers?

6.0 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: Just a minute. I am coming to this. This is what hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies say. The hon. Member for Meriden said that this is not designed to create a fresh flood of inflationary claims. The simple fact is that unless the claims are kept within the 3½ per cent. ceiling as extended by any really watertight productivity deals they are inflationary. There is no means of getting away from that.

Mr. Speed: The right hon. Lady said earlier that there is nothing in the Bill that would stop the steps towards equal pay about which she is talking. Suppose those steps were at the rate of a 6 per cent. increase a year—for some of the examples we have heard, that will take a large number of years, and it should not be forgotten that differentials may be widening—and would eventually, in five or ten years' time, bring women into line. Is the right hon. Lady saying that such increases would not be possible under the Bill?

Mrs. Castle: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish my speech. I am coming to that. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to whip up an irrational feeling on this. They have done it throughout the Bill, and I cannot be surprised that they are doing it again. But it is a very reasonable remark of mine that I should be allowed to finish my speech, because the hon. Gentleman will then have the answer to his question.
The Amendment would allow purely inflationary agreements to be negotiated, because instead of progress towards equal pay being knit into the rest of the criteria, it would become a separate issue riding on the top of any other settlement.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Where is equal pay knitted into this?

Mrs. Castle: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue. I am just coming on to that. I merely say that in that situation one would have an inflationary result.
What I think my hon. Friends want is an assurance that moves towards equal pay will be in accord with the Bill and the prices and incomes policy. This is what I have been asked. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South asked where in the Bill this was possible. It is possible within the criteria which govern the whole operation of the prices and incomes policy. I can assure her that it is wrong to say that there is an implicit ossification of the position of equal pay under the Bill.
The three criteria provided for wage increases under the policy—the Bill is operating within the criteria—give considerable scope for movements towards equal pay. There is the productivity criterion. There is nothing to stop unions, if they want to catch up on equal pay, deciding to devote some of their extra productivity deals to that object. This is happening in some of the most go-ahead agreements. The Ford agreement was a step towards equal pay. The unions that negotiated it will be the first to claim that that is so. Previously the women were in a separate and inferior grade, below the lowest men's rate. Now they have been integrated in the various grades. It is true that they are getting only 85 per cent. of the men's rate. It is equally perfectly true that it would have been open to the union to negotiate 100 per cent. of the men's rate for the women if it had wanted to do that— and within the overall criteria.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax is right when she says that if we are to get advances towards equal pay without having these inflationary consequences, it means, just as when we are dealing with the lower paid in general, that in certain cases the men will have to hold back some of their increases to enable the women to catch up. This is perfectly open to them.
There is also the comparability criterion for wage increases. In the words of the White Paper, it provides for increases where there is widespread recognition that the pay of a certain group of workers has fallen seriously out

of line with the level of remuneration for similar work and needs in the national interest to be improved. I should be the first to agree with my hon. Friend that it is in the national interest that the relative position of women should be improved, and the comparability criterion provides for that.
There is also the criterion of the lower paid. For the reasons which my hon. Friends have so graphically described, this would be generally of greater benefit to women than to men. In all cases, however, it is obvious that increases to women equal to or greater than those to men will depend on the readiness of men to forgo some of their increases if we are to keep within the 3½ per cent. ceiling and the productivity additions that may be agreed.

Mr. Orme: Surely my right hon. Friend is talking as though the 3½ per cent is an iron band. There are exceptions, and surely one of the exceptions ought to be a step for women to obtain equal pay. Ought not my right hon. Friend to take this into account?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the exception has to be one of higher productivity. Otherwise we come up against the inflationary effect of pay increases, with which we are trying to deal. I repeat that productivity deals are being negotiated well within the 3½ per cent. ceiling. There is no reason why the men should not start the levelling process now within the productivity criterion. It is not true to say that it is impossible under the Bill.
My hon. Friends seem to suggest that equal pay should be totally outside the criteria of any incomes policy. Some of my hon. Friends have been attacking the Bill on the ground that it has statutory powers built into it. They say "We want an incomes policy, but it must be voluntary, such as the T.U.C. has enunciated." Let us look at what the T.U.C. said on the question of equal pay in the Economic Review:
The General Council have already made it clear that they will treat sympathetically within the overall criteria claims for the establishment of equal pay for work of equal value.

Mr. Orme: Those are not the Government's criteria.

Mrs. Castle: They may not be our criteria—

Mr. James Dickens: That was not a fair quotation. The T.U.C. is arguing for a voluntary incomes policy within the limits of a much higher rate of economic growth, 6 per cent. per annum, and a wage norm of 5 per cent. as against the Government's 3½ per cent.

Mrs. Castle: I accept that. I am not trying to be unfair. But whether we take a ceiling of 3½ per cent. or 5 per cent.— and the more copper-bottomed productivity deals we get the nearer our percentage ceiling gets to the T.U.C. one—the fact remains that the T.U.C. has never argued that one just negotiates up to the 5 per cent. on the basis of present inequalities and says "We will have equal pay on top". That is all I am saying. Hon. Members can argue with me about the size of our ceiling, but in principle we should move towards equal pay within the criteria of the policy, whether it is voluntary or compulsory.

Mr. Speed: This is a very important point, and I think that the air is being cleared for me and a number of hon. Members opposite. Suppose there are women who are working for a company which is near 100 per cent. efficient—and there are such firms, including one in my constituency—and there is little or no scope for productivity increase. How will such firms implement equal pay?

Mrs. Castle: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is either easy or difficult for me to reply to a generalisation like that. I would want to look at the particular case. It may be that they would qualify under the low paid criterion. But I do not know. I have given the three criteria under which women can move forward. As long as there is an incomes policy it is clear that they have to be adjusted under those criteria.
I want now to go a stage further to deal with the wider point made by some of my hon. Friends. First, they feared that under the policy there may be no progress at all. I hope that I have reassured them about that. Secondly, they considered the wider aspect of the future. They asked about the commitment of the Labour Party for phasing

in equal pay. It is interesting again to quote from the T.U.C, continuing the same passage I have just quoted from. It says:
This will continue"—
that is, the sympathetic treatment of equal pay claims—
but the General Council also take the view that a programme for the achievement of this objective within a specified period should be established and they are discussing this with the C.B.I. and the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South spoke rather scathingly of the talks which have been going on within the working party with both sides of industry—the talks referred to in the Economic Review.
So far, the working party has been concerned with examining the practical implications of implementing equay pay. What does that mean? It sounds a stalling phrase. But I think that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) put her finger on one of the subjects for discussion—the exact definition. As she said, the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. have different definitions. So there are certain practical jobs to be done there. But the Government believe that we ought now to carry these discussions into a new stage.
I therefore intend to enter personally into discussions with both sides of industry directly with a view to agreeing a timetable for phasing in the implementation of equal pay over an appropriate period. No doubt the House will ask, "What period"? Clearly—and I am sure that the House will accept this—any final answer on that ought to await the outcome of the discussions I have. But I myself say that, if equal pay for women in the public service could be phased in over seven years, our industrial women deserve no less generous treatment.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will feel that the Government have responded to their plea for a timetable for phasing in. I hope they will now realise that the talks that have been going on will move into a new phase.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend saying that women public servants are to get equal pay? Is she including the women civil servants who do not get equal pay—the 30,000 women industrial


civil servants? Are the 300 women industrial civil servants in her Department to get it?

Mrs. Castle: I said that if equal pay in the public service to non-industrial industrials could be phased in over seven years it was clear, in my view—although I must enter into consultations about this —that our industrial women deserved no less generous treatment than that. Of course these discussions must embrace all women, including those in the industrial section of the public service. We are talking about discussions on equal pay which clearly must include the women to whom my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. John Biffen: There is some confusion in my mind which I am sure the right hon. Lady would like to clear up. Will this move to equal pay which she hopes will take place within seven years nonetheless be contained within the criteria which are supposed to govern the prices and incomes legislation?

6.15 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: It is difficult to be coherent when constantly interrupted. If I had been allowed to finish my paragraph, I was obviously going on to point out that these discussions start within the context of the prices and incomes policy, just as the T.U.C.'s discussions accept that they must operate within the criteria. Therefore, in this respect, we are in line with the policy of the T.U.C.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend now saying that, within the comparability criterion of the prices and incomes policy, the Government are now committed to introducing in this country equal pay for women before 1975?

Mrs. Castle: I am saying that I am going to enter into immediate discussions with both sides of industry with a view to agreeing a timetable. That is a categoric statement. It will clearly embrace all sectors because it would not be meaningful otherwise. The discussions will be starting as from now. Clearly, the House will be able to cross-examine me on the progress whenever it likes. This is now a commitment which takes us a great deal further than ever before.
I advise my hon. Friends to recognise this and not always try and cast doubt upon the progress that is made. I hope they will recognise also that their Amendment is not necessary in order to enable steps forward to be taken now. I hope they will realise that the Amendment would do something very different from what they imagine. In view of all these circumstances, explanations and commitments, I hope that they will withdraw it.

Mr. John Page: Those who served on the Standing Committee heard a number of unconvincing arguments from the right hon. Lady, but none more so than the one she has just given. I am certain that other hon. Members on both sides will endeavour to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to continue this debate because of the new and rather tortuous arguments presented by the right hon. Lady.
The right hon. Lady seemed to think it rather impertinent of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and of the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) to raise this matter today. But if she was not introducing a statutory incomes policy laying out who is to get paid what, how, when and where, she would not find herself in such a difficulty.
The right hon. Lady said that there is nothing to stop the movement towards equal pay within the criteria of the incomes policy and complained that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton was wrong when he said that it was stopping even faltering steps. But surely she realises that any steps taken within the criteria would be taken in any case whether they involved equal pay or not.
It is no argument to say that a move towards equal pay can be accepted if it is within the money which can be agreed —[Interruption.] I know that this is ladies' day. I feel rather like an interloper at this tea party, but I shall try to carry on.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: On a point of order. Is it in order for hon. Ladies to congregate in the centre Gangway during a debate, as they now are?

Mr. Speaker: Any hon. or right hon. Member can sit where he likes, even on the Front Bench, although that would be a bit unusual.

Mr. Page: Let us now examine whether the criteria in the White Paper, now in the General Considerations Order yet to be debated, can help these faltering steps towards equal pay. [Interruption.] In any other circumstances, I would be extremely offended to see hon. Members leave the Chamber while I was speaking, but I suppose that I must just bear it while hon. Ladies decide what they are to do when the Division comes.
The first criterion is whether the employees concerned accept more exacting work, or a major change in working practices. If the women concerned can prove that they meet this criterion, there is nothing to stop the implementation of a pay rise. The second criterion is whether it is essential in the national interest to secure a change in the distribution of manpower, but I would not have thought that that criterion applied.
The third criterion is whether there is a general recognition that existing wage and salary levels are too low to maintain a reasonable standard of living. This, taken with the fourth, can be considered as the low-paid worker criterion. It was the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn & St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) who said that lower-paid workers were almost invariably women. The fourth criterion is where there is a widespread recognition that the pay of a certain group of workers has fallen seriously out of line with the level of remuneration for similar work and needs in the national interest to be improved.
The right hon. Lady seemed to pin most faith to this criterion. However, paragraph 38 of the White Paper, which governs that criteria, says:
The criterion justifying increases on grounds of comparability needs to be applied selectively, and must not be used to spread pay increases into areas of employment where the original justification does not apply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) and other hon. Members did not say that there was any group of women who were specifically low paid compared with other groups of women. Their argument was that, in general, women were paid less than men. This criterion cannot wash, because it would obviously spread into the employment of all women. We therefore have to return to the decreases in the differentials of wages for women and men, which

have to be found within the total of the 3½ per cent. norm allowed to employees in any organisation. This is the right hon. Lady's argument.
There is already a great erosion of differentials. There are different views as to the value of differentials, but I do not think that anyone would agree that differentials should be completely eroded, so that there was no difference in the pay in any organisation for greater skills. If the right hon. Lady is saying that those with greater skills have to make their contribution through extra productivity, first, to the lower paid male workers and, secondly, to removing the differentials between the pay of women and the pay of men, she is making her whole argument even more absurd.
The right hon. Lady says that she is afraid that the Amendments would blow a hole in the bottom of the ship of the incomes policy and that there would be massive wage increases for equal pay. She also produced the absurd argument that if wage increases could be agreed, they would be used as a lever for even greater wage increases for women. My experience is that most employers are not tumbling over themselves to go for equal pay for equal work. That is the experience of all of us.
The Amendment says only that in the few and exceptional cases where an agreement is freely negotiated between employers and employees for equal pay for equal work, it should not be subject to an Order under the Bill. I cannot see any logic in refusing the Amendment. If the right hon. Lady refuses it, with her background of fighting for emancipation, with the rather rocky background of the Labour election manifesto—and one of her hon. Friends said that if she leaned of that, she would find that it was a rocking chair—she has to show why this small but important Amendment would not make only a very little difference.
I suspect that in the first year it would make a marginal if any difference in the cost of wages to the economy, but at least it would show that she, as a member of the Cabinet, was leaving open the door to the principle of equal pay for equal work, which we all understood she had embraced for so long.

Mr. Eric Ogden: At least, the debate will have proved the truth of the old saying that the female of the species is more deadly than the male. Speaking after my hon. Friends of a different sex, anything I might say will be easily answered by my right hon. Friend. I make it clear that I support the intentions of those who support the Amendment. Where I am sitting, surrounded by my hon. Friends the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), it would be foolish and dangerous to do anything other than say that I support their intention.
However, in logic, I must advance at least one argument, which is that in their claim for equal pay under the prices and incomes policy they are asking that men should be treated differently from women, that women should have an advantage, that in the Bill there should be special and different treatment for women simply because they are women. That is a point which we might develop later.
6.30 p.m.
I intervene because of two suggestions made to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. The first is that she should consider these Amendments more seriously and find them more acceptable simply because she is a woman. That point of view does a disservice to the case for equal pay and equality between the sexes. She must treat this matter as a Minister rather than as a woman Minister or man Minister. Secondly, it has been suggested that the dispute between the women machinists of the Ford Motor Company and that company is a classic case of equal pay for equal work. If it were, a high price is being paid in unemployment and loss of exports.
I ask hon. Members to consider it more closely and to accept that it is not such a case, but that it is a case of national agreements, of grading agreements. It is one out of only 250 grading disputes and claims at Ford's in which there are men machinists on the same grade as women machinists. This is a grading dispute, not part of the claim for equal pay.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Would not my hon. Friend agree that at Ford's women get about 85 per cent. of the men's pay in the same grade?

Mr. Ogden: My hon. Friend is not absolutely accurate. There are variations in the same grade. To cite the dispute at Ford's weakens the case for equal pay.
I ask my right hon. Friend, first, to reply to the debate as a Minister and not as a woman Minister, because to do so would be a disservice to the cause of equality and, secondly, to deal with the point raised concerning the motor industry.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Whether the Minister speaks as a Minister or not, she is a woman. When she was in opposition, we heard her pressing very strongly the claim for equal pay for women on many occasions. To many hon. Members, the cloak which she wears today is not nearly as attractive as the one which she wore when she was in opposition. Her views seem to have changed considerably from those which she expressed then.
There is no mention in the Bill of excluding women from its provisions. Although the right hon. Lady may consider it an impertinence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) to propose his Amendment, and not nearly so impertinent for her hon. Friends to put forward the same sort of Amendment, although she resists it just as strongly, I consider that it is a very good thing that my hon. Friend has proposed it. Because there is no mention of excluding the claims of women from the Bill, we must assume that they are also subject to the 3½ per cent. norm in asking for wage increases.
The Minister made the point that the women's case would be helped by men refusing to take their norm of 3½ per cent. But, if, as the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) said, many women are receiving only 85 per cent. of the money which men are receiving for doing identical work, the men would have to forgo any increase which they might receive so that the women were able to catch up in seven years.
The House would like to know precisely what the right hon. Lady means


when she talks about women attaining equal pay in seven years. Did she mean that the aim of the Government was that women would attain parity with men in seven years and that the 3½ per cent. norm would not apply to them, particularly if men in the same industry received a 3½ per cent. increase? If the women were not allowed more, their position would be unchanged.
I should like to raise one or two points which have not been mentioned. In many industries, mechanisation has reached such a stage that it is possible for less skilled people to do the job and the job is less arduous. Because of this, women might be able to take on jobs which men are doing. In times of economic difficulty and when the country is very cost-conscious, there could be pressures applied to employ women in jobs in which men have been employed in the past.
At a time of high and rising unemployment, this is a point which should be taken into consideration by the Government. If the economic situation improves, instead of taking back men who are at present unemployed because of economic circumstances, manufacturers might well be encouraged to employ women to do mechanised jobs which men do now. In these circumstances, it is in the interests of the men and of the economy that women's rates of pay for similar work should equate with those of men.
I hope that the Minister will take that point into consideration. I think that we are all disappointed about the cloak in which the Minister is at present clad. I hope to see some of the views which she expressed when she spoke from the back benches translated into action. It has been said that she has the door ajar and is in a position to bring about an improvement in women's wages. The door may well be ajar as a result of the Bill, but it seems to me that the right hon. Lady has it kept securely in place with an extremely strong chain.

Mr. Orme: I am a member of a major trade union which has over 100,000 women members who have been fighting for a considerable period for a basis of equality within the engineering industry, one of the main manufacturing industries. In consequence, I am disturbed by what my right hon. Friend said in her reply.
My right hon. Friend has said that she is in favour of a movement towards equal pay for equal work, but that it must be within the criteria of the prices and incomes policy. One more aspect which makes so much nonsense of the criteria of the prices and incomes policy and is to work within this 3½ per cent., when the women workers within the engineering industry have been trying for many years to get the male labourer's rate. What is now classed as women's work in many instances is semi-skilled and very nearly skilled. Still they cannot obtain the male labourer's rate. That has not been due in the past to the interference of Governments. In the main, it is because of the reluctance of employers to agree to such upgrading.

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend will recall that I quoted the T.U.C. Economic Review, which states that equal pay should be achieved within the criteria. Do I take it that if the ceiling was 5 per cent., not 3½ per cent., my hon. Friend would be in favour of including it within the criteria?

Mr. Orme: I did not write the T.U.C. Economic Review, nor did I vote for it. It is an admirable report. I certainly agree with the greater part of it. The report says that growth within our society is based on growth of incomes and growth of distribution of the wealth that is created. I accept that we cannot have an open-ended figure, but we must have a far higher figure than the 3½ per cent. that my right hon. Friend has laid down.
My right hon. Friend said that the previous Prices and Incomes Bill, and this one, does not inhibit increases of pay for women as opposed to men. I understand that an increase of 10s. a week was offered for men, 9s. 6d. for women. However, as women are on a much lower rate of pay, the percentage was above the norm. Has this been referred to the Prices and Incomes Board concerning women, but not men? I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can answer that question, because this is germane to the argument.
I do not think there is any difference between my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends about wanting to see this principle implemented. But we find it


difficult to see how it can be implemented within the terms of the criteria that my right hon. Friend lays down. I accept that if this Amendment were accepted it would mean that women could perhaps get a 10, 15 or 20 per cent. increase as opposed to 3½ per cent. for men to bring them in some form of higher pay.
There has been talk about the cost of improving pay and benefits for women. We talk about it as if it comes about overnight. This is absolute nonsense. It takes years of negotiation. If, tonight or tomorrow, the Government were to say, "We accept the basis of equal pay for equal work", it would still take a considerable time to negotiate improvements in pay within both public and private industry. These things are not achieved overnight. The long struggle of my union to obtain the male labourer's rate for women is only a stepping stone. If my right hon. Friend accepted the principle in the Amendment, rather than it leading to a high increase in costs, it would prevent many employers from using female labour wastefully as cheap labour and as a form of exploitation.
6.45 p.m.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend said that she wanted—and it is what we all want—low unit costs and higher wages. We want the maximum productivity within industry. There is, in my opinion, a great waste of the intelligence and skill of women in industry. This is not just a matter of the emancipation of women. It is basically a matter of social justice. I say quite frankly to all hon. Ladies that it is not just a case of them carrying the standard. It is something that affects all of us, because when women are treated as inferior it is an inferior society.
Coming to what my right hon. Friend said about the seven years' period, I would remind her that her predecessor —now the Minister of Power—has been concerned in negotiations over many years. Discussions have gone on over many years and we have had no progress reported to the House since they started. We could, if we are not careful, go on discussing this matter until 1975 and still arrive at no basic starting point.
We need a breakthrough on this issue. The Government, in a way, made a breakthrough by setting the example with civil servants, other professional people and teachers. The Government could set an example by their own employees coming within the industrial grades. Whatever my right hon. Friend says about equal pay for equal work being involved, or not being involved, women workers have seen this as an issue for parity in their present grades. This has acted, and is acting, as a catalyst within industry. I am of the opinion that this has been coming for many years, and at last we see women moving forward in this matter.
I interrupted earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger). I know that my right hon. Friend will not dissent from the proposition that women must accept part of the blame for the fact that advancement has not taken place. I know that when these issues come up on trade union agendas at conferences they tend to get pushed to the back, carried unanimously to the end, everyone says, "Well done", and they go home and leave it at that. Women should become unionised and use their collective strength. My right hon. Friend knows that within her own constituency women organise and use trade unionism to some effect. This could be done more widely throughout the whole of industry.
I believe that this is an evolving policy, if I may use that phrase after yesterday's debate. This is a vital issue, and the fact that we are debating it today shows the kind of realignment that is taking place in our society. Women are beginning to assert their rights as equal citizens at work and elswhere, and this process will continue to evolve. The Government should seize this opportunity of playing a leading part in this process. I say that particularly because the matter is referred to specifically in our Election manifesto.

Sir E. Brown: The Minister said that she intends to start discussions with the C.B.I. and the trade unions about the implementation of this policy. Surely it would have been more honest to have signed the I.L.O. Convention? That would have shown good faith on the part of the Government, and would have been much better than adopting this policy restricted under the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must not be speeches.

Mr. Orme: Many of us support the I.L.O. Convention on women's rights. We have fought for them for many years, and will continue to do so. I do not attribute any bad faith to my right hon. Friend. I believe that she regards this matter with as much sincerity as we do, but she obviously has a different approach to the problem and is trying to deal with it within the criteria of the prices and incomes policy. I do not think that this is a laughing matter. There is a basic difference of opinion between us, and what we are trying to do is to overcome the difficulty.
My right hon. Friend was trying to bridge the difficulties which exist, but I regard her proposal as rather vague because it all depends on negotiations, which means that at the end of the day there has been agreement with bodies such as the C.B.I. and T.U.C. If we leave the matter there, we shall not achieve what we want. Somebody has to make a start to deal with the problem, and I think that the Government ought to take the lead.
As I understand, my right hon. Friend's objection to the proposal now being considered is that if the increase is paid on the basis of equal pay for equal work, and if 3½ per cent. is regarded as the norm, women will, in fact, get a higher percentage increase. This is where the difficulty arises, because my right hon. Friend is saying that if women are to get more than the norm men must get less. I do not accept that.

Mr. Burden: rose—

Mr. Orme: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, but I am trying to put forward one or two detailed points about an intricate and difficult matter.
I think that women trade unionists should be honoured, because they have to put up with a great deal. For many years many of them have fought for the principles about which we are talking today. The difficulty arises from the barrier which exists between men and women doing equal work. Exceptions to the rules laid down in the Bill have been made for productivity and other factors. Unless an exception is made to allow

women to receive equal pay, we shall not be able to achieve what we want.
My right hon. Friend has made a serious attempt to meet the points which have been raised, but I do not think that she has dealt with the central issue, namely, that on the basis of the 3½ per cent. norm it will not be possible to achieve our objective.

Dame Irene Ward: We have had a most interesting discussion. So many points of view have been expressed, and so many difficulties have been outlined, that we must all feel somewhat concerned about how the issue at stake can be resolved.
I was devastated when the right hon. Lady, in replying to the Amendment, announced what appeared to be a new policy. If this policy had been decided on when the Bill was first introduced, I should have thought the proper constitutional procedure was to make the announcement during the Second Reading debate. I do not think that a matter of supreme policy should be, as it were, tossed off by the right hon. Lady; and I say that because of the effective way in which the case has been presented by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It seemed as though the right hon. Lady suddenly realised that she had to deal with the matter in an all-embracing way. She seems to have gone headlong into a pond, and she will find great difficulty in swimming out of it.
The right hon. Lady said that she would now start consulting the parties concerned with this matter. It seems to me extraordinary that if the Cabinet had approved the policy of equal pay some time ago we were not told about it before these Amendments came up for discussion today. I set no store by what the right hon. Lady said was now her intention, because I believe that such a proposal is impossible.
The right hon. Lady said that £600 million would be added to wages and salaries if the principle of equal pay were introduced now, but she seemed to imply that with her policy she could phase this increase over seven years. At any rate that would add nearly £100 million a year to our commitments—and that is a vast sum. I do not see how that could be acceptable to a Chancellor or to the gnomes of Zurich, who are so bound up


with deciding what our financial policy must be.
7.0 p.m.
How will the right hon. Lady ensure agreement between the employers, the trade unions and the other people concerned? I know a good deal about employers; I do not know so much about trade unions. Those who have advocated equal pay for years have always argued that it is the employers who present the real problem; they have never really wanted to ensure social justice for women, right across the board. In those circumstances, I am pleased to realise that so many of my hon. Friends are as interested in social justice for women as they are in establishing it right across the board. This is quite a new feature in my party.
Nevertheless, it was the Conservative Party which, after a long fight, introduced in respect of civil servants, local government employees and the teaching profession, a phasing-in of equal pay over a period of seven years. It is also fair to point out that this was an easy matter compared with the present exercise. The Conservative Government had it within their own power to deal with the problem. Many people argued that the Conservatives were doing something for professional women, but not for lower-paid women in industry. I agree. Nevertheless, it was an achievement of the Conservative Government. But that achievement was much easier than what is being asked today, because when we made our election pledges we knew that we had it within our power to implement such a scheme.
I am not saying that the right hon. Lady is not genuine. I am sure that she is. I am sure that she would like to achieve equal pay for women. But the opposition to the scheme which she has suddenly announced will be tremendous. Does she think that she will be very welcome if she comes to the North-East Coast, with all the closing down of coal mines, and so on, and explains that men will have to forgo some of their wage increases so that women may have pay increases? That she should have announced such a scheme, in a sort of euphoria, has surprised and shocked my hon. Friends and myself. It is quite impossible to achieve.
One point that has not yet been made in the debate is that the chief objection to equal pay for women comes from the large employers of labour. Some of them are completely disinterested in the social justice of this issue. How the House will be able to convince them that it is right to ensure the phasing-in of equal pay when the economy can take the strain, I do not understand, and I am not very happy about it.
I was very sad about the Ford dispute, when I realised the way in which the Chairman of Ford's was dealing with the situation. He merely tossed it aside, saying:
This is emotional and evocative—a whole lot of women have become interested in this matter.
He had not the foggiest idea that the truth is that women have suddenly realised that they are being used as cheap labour.
Women working in industry can often produce things which men cannot, because they have much more flexible fingers. They can operate certain technical processes much better than can men. They are very skilled in certain processes. Many people will be surprised to know what a skilled contribution to the economy many women make. I still have to learn from the right hon. Lady what process she will use to enable the C.B.I. to accept the proposition that she is now putting forward.
I believe in private enterprise, but I also believe that, like everything else, it has its disadvantages. The nationalised industries have made no contribution in this matter which would enable them to be successfully set against the private sector in terms of achievement. A general feeling of antagonism towards women has been traditional for hundreds of years. When the right hon. Lady talked so glibly about being able to deal with this matter she was living in a fool's paradise.
I have always believed that the real problem in a prices and incomes policy lay in increased productivity. It is quite impossible, however well-managed they may be, for some concerns to increase productivity. This applies to certain industrial groups such as the railways, the buses, the Post Office, and the banks. We have never had a straight answer


from the Government to this question. The other day, as I came through the ticket barrier at the railway station, I said to the ticket collector, "How will you increase your productivity, bearing in mind the fact that you can collect tickets only from those people who are travelling on the trains?" He said, "The only way to increase productivity here would be to abolish my job and to have all the passengers put their tickets into a box." The idea of increasing productivity has a stultifying effect in wide sectors of industry. We have never had any directions from the right hon. Lady or her Party in this matter. That is regrettable. There is a feeling among the ordinary industrial workers that they are being "sold a pup."

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is getting widely away from the two Amendments which we are discussing.

Dame Irene Ward: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but it is always difficult when the Minister has given full rein to matters which have nothing to do with the Amendment, although now and again she put in a few words just to refer to it. She discussed the whole policy—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady must take up with the right hon. Lady what the hon. Lady has done; she must now obey the Chair.

Dame Irene Ward: I have finished, and thank you for letting me go on for so long.
There is throughout the length and breadth of the country a very real interest in the introduction of equal pay. I fully support the Amendment. The right hon. Lady will soon find that the women of the country think that they have been "sold a pup". Her speech today did not inspire confidence that she has grasped what is necessary, and that she will be able to take steps to phase in equal pay from now, as she said.
I almost thought that the Chairman of the Confederation of British Industry would be coming in to sit on the Front Bench to discuss with her how equal pay was to be implemented. She said that she would do so straight away, here and now. Her speech will arouse keen apprehension in the minds of a great many women.
I shall gladly vote for the Amendment. We must at least have one or two realistic things in the Bill, otherwise the right hon. Lady will—she has already done so—get the whole economy of the country into such a mess that we shall never be able to recover.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether she will give a precise commitment to enter into talks with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. in order to provide the seven-year limit on the implementation of equal pay?

Mrs. Castle: I am very happy to answer the question of my hon. Friend—

Mr. Peter Emery: The right hon. Lady needs the leave of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady does not need the leave of the House.

Mrs. Castle: As a specific question had been asked, I thought that it would be only courteous to my hon. Friend to answer it.
May I say to my hon. Friend that this is exactly what I have been saying in my speech. I have given a commitment to the House that I will immediately enter into discussions with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. in order to draw up a timetable for the implementation of equal pay; and I have made it clear that, in my view, that timetable should have a limit of seven years. I hope that meets the point my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mrs. Renée Short: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what is likely to happen if the C.B.I. refuse to implement equal pay at the end of the seven-year period? This is the crux of the matter.

Mrs. Castle: I have no reason to believe that there will be a breakdown of the talks, but if there were I should report to the House what action the Government would have to take in that situation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 230.

Division No. 243.]
AYES
[7.15 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ensor, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Albu, Austen
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
 Lipton, Marcus


Alldritt, Walter
Faulds, Andrew
Lomas, Kenneth


Allen, scholefield
Fernyhough, E.
Loughlin, Charles


Anderson, Donald
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Luard, Evan


Archer, Peter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Armstrong, Ernest
Foley, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ford, Ben
MacCoil, James


Baxter, William
Forrester, John
MacDermot, Niall


Beaney, Alan
Fowler, Gerry
Macdonald, A. H.


Bence, Cyril
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McGuire, Michael


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
 Freeson, Reginald
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bidwell, Sydney
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Binns, John
Gardner, Tony
Mackie, John


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.


Blackburn, F.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Maclennan, Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Booth, Albert
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Boston, Terence
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, Eddie
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Boyden, James
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)
Manuel, Archie


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Marks, Kenneth


Brdley, Tom
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marquand, David


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamling, William
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, William
Mason Rt. Hn. Roy


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Christopher


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Harrison, Walter (WaKefield)
Mendelsion J. J.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Haseldine, Norman
Mendelson, J. J. 


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Roy
Mikardo, Ian


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Millan, Bruce


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Henig, Stanley
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Callaghan Rt. Hn. James
Hilton, W.S.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Cant, R. B.
Horner, John
Molloy, William


Carmicheal, Neil
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Dougas
Moonman, Eric


Carter-Jones Lewis
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Castle Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Coe, Denis
Howie, E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Coleman, Donald
Hoy, James
Morriss, John (Aberavon)


Concannon, J. D.
Huckfied, Leslie
Moyle, Roland


Conlan Bernard
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Corbet, MRS Freda
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, Albert


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Neal, Haroid


crawsaw, Richard

Newens, Stan


Cronin, John
Hunter, Adam
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Culten, Mrs. Alice
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Norwood, Christopher


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Oakes, Gordon


Darling Rt. Hn. George
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ogden, Eric


Davidson, Arthur (Acrington)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O' Malley, Brain


Davies Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Oram, Albert E.


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (conway)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Orme, Stanley


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Rt, Hn. Roy (8techford)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
j0nes Dan (Burnley)
Pannel1, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dell, Edmund
jones.Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Park, Trevor


Dempsey, James
Jones, Idwal (Wrexham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Dickens, James
Judd, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dobson, Ray
Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurence


Doig, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dnberg, Tom
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Dr David (w'worth, Central)
Pentland, Norman


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lawson, George
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Leadbitter, Ted
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Eadie, Alex
Ledger, Ron
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Edelman, Maurice
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, William (Rugby)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, John (Reacting)
Randall, Harry


Ellis, John
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rankin, John


English, Michael
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rees, Merlyn


Ennals, David
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.




Rhodes, Geoffrey
Small, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Richard, Ivor
Snow, Julian
White, Mrs. Eirene


Roberts, Albert (Normarrton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Whltlock, William


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caemarvon)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Symonds, J. B.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Roebuck, Roy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rose, Paul …
Thornton, Ernest
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Tinn, James
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rowlands E. (Cardiff, N.)
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, William (Coventry, s.)


Ryan, John
Tuck, Raphael
Winnick, David


Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Urwin, T. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Varley, Eric G.
Woof, Robert


Shore, Rt Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wyatt, Wood row


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
 Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Yates, Victor
Yates, Victor


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wallace, George



Silkin, Hr. S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkins, David (Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silverman, Julius
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Mr. Charles Grey and


Skeffington, Arthur
Weitzman, David
Mr. Neil McBride.


Slater, Joseph
Wellbeloved, James





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kimball, Marcus


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kirk, Peter


Astor, John
Emery, Peter
Kitson, Timothy


Awdry, Daniel
Errington, Sir Eric
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Eyre, Reginald
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Farr, John
Lane, David


Batsford, Brian
Fisher, Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Belt, Ronald
Fortescue, Tim
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Foster, Sir John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos, &amp; Fhm)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Lang-stone)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
Longden, Gilbert


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Loveys, W. H.


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lubbock, Eric


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Glover, Sir Douglas
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Black, Sir Cyril
Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Boardman. Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grant, Anthony
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Grant-Ferris, R.
McMaster, Stanley


Braine, Bernard
Grcsham Cooke, R.
Marten, Neil


Brewis, John
Grieve, Percy
Maude, Angus


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crifftths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Brown Sir Edward (Bath)
Grlmond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mawby, Ray


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bryan, Paul
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bullus Sir Eric
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Burden F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman


Campbell B. (Oldham W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maidon)
Monro, Hector


Cary Sir Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus


Channon H P G
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Chichister-Clark, R.
Heald, Rt Hn. Slr Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Clark, Henry
Heseltine, Michael
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Clegg, walter
Higgins, Terence L.
Murton, Oscar


Cooke, Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hill, J. E. B.
Neave, Airey


Cordle, John
Hirst, Geofferoy
Nicholls, Sir Harmer


Corfield, F. V.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Noble, Rt. Hn. Micheal


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Phillip
Nott, John


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthrone)
Hooson, Emlyn
Onslow, Cranley


Crosthwaite-Eye, Sir Oliver
Horden, Peter
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Hornby, Richard
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Crouch, David
Howell, David (Guildford)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Crowder, F. p.
Hunt, John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Currie, G. B. H.
Iremonger, T. L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dalkeith, earl ot
Irvine, Bryant codman (Rye)
Pardoe, John


Dance, James
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Davidson,james(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Peel, John


d'Avigdor-Cioldsm.d, Sir Henry
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Percival, Ian


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Peyton, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jopling, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pounder, Rafton


Doughty, Charles
Kaberry, sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Drayson, G. B.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Prior, J. M. L.


Eden, Sir John
Korshaw, Anthony
Pym, Francis







Quennell, Miss J. M.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Walker-Smith, nt. Hn, Sir Derek


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Speed, Keith
Wall, Patrick


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stainton, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stodart, Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Weatherill, Bernard


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Summers, Sir Spencer
Webster, David


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Robson Brown, Sir William
Teeling, Sir William
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Temple, John M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Royle, Anthony
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Russell, Sir Ronald
Tilney, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Scott, Nicholas
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Scott-Hopkins, James
Van straubenzee, W. R.
Wylie, N. R.


Sharples, Richard
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Younger, Hn. George


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Vickers, Dame Joan



Silvester, Frederick
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Mr. Jasper More and




Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes, 272.

Division No. 244.]
AYES
[7.25 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jopling, Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Doughty, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Astor, John
Drayson, G. B.
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Atkins. Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Eden, Sir John
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Awdry, Daniel
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kershaw, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kimball, Marcus


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Emery, Peter
Kirk, Peter


Batsford, Brian
Errington, Sir Erie
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Eyre, Reginald
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bell, Ronald
Farr, John
Lane, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fisher, Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fortescue, Tim
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biffen, John
Foster, Sir John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Biggs-Davison, John
Calbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Black, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Longden, Gilbert


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Loveys, W. H.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lubbock, Eric


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bossom, Sir Clive
Goodhew, Victor
MacArthur, Ian


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gower, Raymond
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp;Crom'ty)


Braine, Bernard
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Brewis, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grieve, Percy
McMaster, Stanley


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maude, Angus


Bryan, Paul
Gurden, Harold
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills,Peter (Torrington)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon. N.W.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Miscampbell, Norman


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hay, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Clark, Henry
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
More, Jasper


Clegg, Walter
Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cooke, Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Mott-Radcliffe, Sir Charles


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hiley, Joseph
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cordle, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Murton, Oscar


Corfield, F. V.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Costain, A. P.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Neave, Airey


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holland, Philip
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Hooson, Emlyn
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Crouch, David
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Crowder, F. P.
Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Howell, David (Guildford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hunt, John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Dance, James
Iremonger, T. L.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pardoe, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Peel, John




Percival, Ian
Scott, Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan


Peyton, John
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Sharples, Richard
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Pink, R. Bonner
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Pounder, Rafton
Silvester, Frederick
Wall, Patrick


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Walters, Dennis


Prior, J. M. L.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Ward, Dame Irene


Pym, Francis
Speed, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stainton, Keith
Webster, David


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stodart, Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Tapsell, Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ridsdaie, Julian
Teeling, Sir William
Woodnutt, Mark


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Temple, John M.
Worsley, Marcus


Robson Brown, Sir William
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wylie, N. R.


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tilney, John
Younger, Hn. George


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.



Royle, Anthony
Van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Russell, Sir Ronald
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mr. Anthony Grant and




Mr. Timothy Kitson.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Dell, Edmund
Huckfield, Leslie


Albu, Austen
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Alldritt, Walter
Dobson, Ray
Hunter, Adam


Allen, Scholefield
Doig, Peter
Hynd, John


Anderson, Donald
Dunn, James A.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Archer, Peter
Dunnett, Jack
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eadie, Alex
Jeger, George (Goole)


Baxter, William
Edelman, Maurice
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Beaney, Alan
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bence, Cyril
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
English, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Binns, John
Ennals, David
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)


Bishop, E. S.
Ensor, David
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Blackburn, F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Judd, Frank


Boston, Terence
Faulds, Andrew
Kelley, Richard


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fernyhough, E.
Kenyon, Clifford


Boyden, James
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lawson, George


Bradley, Tom
Foley, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Ledger, Ron


Brooks, Edwin
Ford, Ben
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Forrester, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Fowler, Gerry
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lipton, Marcus


Buchan, Norman
Gardner, Tony
Lomas, Kenneth


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ginsburg, David
Loughlin, Charles


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Luard, Evan


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gourlay, Harry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cant, R. B.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McCann, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, Eddie
MacColl, James


Coe, Denis
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)
MacDermot, Niall


Coleman, Donald
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Macdonald, A. H.


Concannon, J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamling, William
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hannan, William
Mackie, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Harper, Joseph
Mackintosh, John P.


Cronin, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Haseldine, Norman
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hattersley, Roy
McNamara, J. Kevin


Dalyell, Tam
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
MacPherson, Malcolm


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Henig, Stanley
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hilton, W. S.
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Horner, John
Manuel, Archie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Marquand, David


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howie, W.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hoy, James
Mayhew, Christoper







Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Millan, Bruce
Price, William (Rugby)
Thornton, Ernest


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Probert, Arthur
Tinn, James


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Randall, Harry
Tuck, Raphael


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Rankin, John
Urwin, T. W.


Molloy, William
Rees, Merlyn
Varley, Eric G.


Moonman, Eric
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Richard, Ivor
Wallace, George


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Weitzman, David


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wellbeloved, James


Murray, Albert
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Neal, Harold
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Roebuck, Roy
Whitlock, William


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby,S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Oakes, Gordon
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ogden, Eric
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


O'Malley, Brian
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Oram, Albert E.
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Oswald, Thomas
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Palmer, Arthur
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Slater, Joseph
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Small, William
Winnick, David


Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Snow, Julian
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Pavitt, Laurence
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Yates, Victor


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.



Pentland, Norman
Symonds, J. B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Charles Grey and


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
 Mr. Neil McBride.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: It might be convenient if at this stage I announced a slight change in the grouping of selected Amendments on the Notice Paper. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) for calling my attention to the matter. What I have to announce is a more logical grouping, and I mention this because it alters the order in which the debates follow each other.
The debate which is supposed to begin on Amendment No. 60, plus a number of other Amendments, will, in fact, take place on Amendment No. 55, plus Amendments Nos. 73, 141, 142 and 143. Amendment No. 72 disappears in the process. The debate on Amendment No. 67 will take place on a discussion with Amendment No. 118. This is a better grouping than I had originally proposed. Indeed, the first grouping contained an error. I again express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury for drawing the matter to my attention.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I beg to move Amendment No. 146, in page 2, line 15, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 18 and insert:

'(instead of the six months so beginning as provided by section 1(2)(b)) or, in a case within section 2(2)(c) of that Act, with the date of publication of the direction given by virtue of that section (instead of the six months beginning with the date when the direction comes into force as provided by section 2(2)(c))'.
This Amendment and Amendment No. 147 spring from a Committee point raised by my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who drew attention to the provisions of Section 3(1) of the 1967 Act in that it empowers us to make Orders under specific conditions. That Section says that in imposing a standstill, or extending a standstill, after an adverse report by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, the standstill can come into force either when the Order is made or at a later date.
The intention of the later date provision was very clear and in no way sinister. It was to enable parties affected by an extended standstill to make whatever adjustments and preparations were necessary for their technical convenience. But the Committee expressed the fear that the ability of my right hon. Friend to make an Order operative from a later date might create two situations. The first was a situation in which the effect of the Order, although of course not the legal force of the standstill, might be prolonged. That would be out of the ignorance of the parties, but nevertheless the


Committee feared that such a situation might come about.
The second fear which the Committee expressed was that a standstill Order might be kept hanging over the heads of the parties although it was not operative. I gave an assurance to the Committee that the. Order procedure would never be operated in that way, but a perfectly legitimate point was made that if an assurance could be given, was it not possible to write that assurance into the Bill? This would show that my right hon. Friend would not only choose not to operate in this fashion but would not be able to do so. Amendment No. 147 gives exact substance to that intention.
That Amendment says that an Order must end eight months after it has been made. The operation of the Order may begin on the date it is made or at a later date specified by my right hon. Friend, but the Order can last for only eight months. The net effect is that if my right hon. Friend chooses to make the date of operation later than the date when the Order is made, the period of its operation is correspondingly reduced. If it is six weeks after the Order is made, it can run for only eight months minus six weeks. Therefore, the assurance I gave to the Committee that we would limit Orders in this precise way is met by Amendment No. 147.
Amendment No. 146 is a paving Amendment which applies the same intention to other methods of imposing standstills. I commend it to the House as a concession rightly made following the undertaking so that we can assure the House that it is being translated into statutory effect.

Mr. Speaker: From what he said when opening the debate, I understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes these two Amendments to be discussed together.

Mr. Hattersley: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. That was the intention.

Sir John Foster: We are glad that the Government have carried out the corrections indicated by criticisms in Committee. I shall not press the hon. Gentleman to explain Amendment No. 146 in more detail because the underlying legislative provisions are much more complicated than he said they

were. We welcome the fact that the Government have corrected that fault about the standstill and about the later date. Without this correction it would have been possible for the Minister to make an Order beginning to operate 10 years hence. We are grateful to the Government for carrying out undertakings given to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 147, in line 20, leave out from 'be' to 'as' in line 22, and insert:
'a period ending eight months after the date of the order but beginning with that date or a later date (instead of a period of three months beginning with the date of the order or a later date,'.—[Mr. Hattersley.]

7.45 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 2, line 33, leave out from 'extend' to end of line 3 on page 3 and add:
'the period to which the said provision is to apply but so that the same shall expire not later than seven months after the making of the said order'.
This is one of the most disturbing parts of the Bill, and one to which in Committee hon. Members on both sides objected. I think it objectionable and that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to show their objections to it. The purpose of the Clause is to extend the Government's delaying powers under the 1967 Act over prices and incomes from seven to 12 months. The purpose of subsection (4) is to enable the Government to extend Orders made under the existing old Act and bring them up to the maximum under the new Bill. The right hon. Lady described this as a phasing or bridging part of the Bill, meaning that it would phase the new situation in with the old. I believe it is a retrospective extension of the old Act and a pulling out of the telescope to the maximum length of the new Bill.
To those of us who served on the Committee it was known as the "hanging Amendment" because of the graphic description by a right hon. Friend who said that if we were discussing, not prices and incomes but capital punishment, anyone who at present is serving a life sentence after the Bill became law would be liable to be hanged. That was not denied by the right hon. Lady, although she said


she considered it to be a slightly exaggerated example. The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) described the subsection as "a fiddler's charter" because it will allow any Minister—he specifically said that he was not referring to the right hon. Lady—to fiddle with Orders which had already been made.
In instances to which the subsection would apply to prices, even greater confusion and uncertainty than exists at present would be caused. Any companies which might have an existing direction or Order could not plan with certainty for their future if the Order was under the old Measure and could be continued after the new Bill has passed. It will be interesting to know if the Under-Secretary can tell us how many, if any, companies there are at present on whom the effect of this subsection could fall. They would feel that after they had served the sentence they had been given they would be able to carry on business activities in the normal way, but they would be under the threat of having their sentence almost doubled by a further Order. Much more serious is the effect which this would have on wages on which a standstill direction or Order was already in force or was contemplated before the passing of the present Bill. This is not a stop-go Bill qua penalties. It is stop-stop—a continuation of the pain.
I want to give some examples of how the Bill might affect particular cases. I shall be specific about two or three cases and ask the Under-Secretary to tell us what the Government's attitude is to those cases. Before doing that I want to point out a rather cynical piece of humour which is contained in the next following subsection, which reads:
Where an order or direction is or has been made … the award or settlement … shall not be the subject of any second or further reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes either during the period of standstill … or after the expiration of that period.
It is strange that that should follow immediately after the subsection which extends the lifetime of the penalties contained in orders, if there is an amending order, which had been made under the previous Act.
The intention of the Amendment is to avoid the worst aspects of retrospection

and to limit the Minister's power of extension to the full period of the original Bill. The mood of the House yesterday would seem to indicate that these restrictive Clauses are already strong and testing enough. If the Secretary of State persists in taking further powers, the House must conclude that she has a definite objective in so doing.
I suspect that the Under-Secretary is more expert than anybody else in the country in answering these questions. I understand that there are at present Orders Nos. 1 and 2 of 1968 covered by Statutory Instruments Nos. 816 and 905 which direct a standstill on certain transport workers of Nottingham City Council and the Scottish draughtsmen. Order No. 1 is due to expire on 26th July, 1968. Is it intended to extend the length of the standstill or, if an Order is later needed, is it intended that that Order shall be fulfilled under the terms of the Bill? Order No. 2 expires on 19th August. Likewise, is it the intention that this shall be treated as being under the existing Regulations or under the Bill when enacted?
There are a number of other standstills following notification in the London Gazette connected with the Bristol dock undertaking employees, Rochdale municipal busmen, and certain saw milling employees. Will references which have already been made under the old Act be treated with the conditions of the Orders under the Bill when enacted? Are these the workers who the right hon. Lady wishes to catch under subsection (4), or is she thinking of catching someone else?
What would be the legal position of, say, the B.O.A.C. pilots if they were already taking industrial action or striking at a time when an order was made after the National Board had reported? If they were already taking industrial action, would it be incumbent upon them under the Bill to return to their full normal working conditions so that they should not be considered to be bringing pressure to bear against their employers? The railwaymen might not be taking strike action, but they might be working to rule and going slowly, which, if an Order were made, would not be in consonance with the new Act.
Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to an intervention by the right hon. Lady yesterday during the debate on


productivity? This has a direct bearing on the Amendment, because it concerns the extension of existing Orders.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It is not obvious to me how anything that was said yesterday about productivity can arise on the Amendment.

Mr. Page: It was an intervention in that debate. If you will allow me to read it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will find that it is particularly apposite, because it discusses what happens after an Order is made if there are any changes in the circumstances. I think that you will find that it is totally in order. The right hon. Lady said this:
Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that a standstill Order is related to a particular agreement? If the original agreement is torn up, and a new one is reached, then the Order ceases to be effective. If it were desired to put an Order on a new agreement, because it was ' phoney', then a new Order would be necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1968; Vol. 767, c. 292.]
8.0 p.m.
That intervention by the right hon. Lady seemed to throw doubt on the whole position of any agreement after an Order had been made. Does it mean, for example, that if there is any sort of change, the agreement becomes a changed agreement and, therefore, the Order can be torn up? How great a change would need to be made for an existing Order not to apply to the company or organisation concerned?
I ask those questions not in a critical way but to seek an explanation. It is the understanding of all engaged on these matters in industry, employers, trade unions and others, that if an Order is made after the Prices and Incomes Board has reported, the Order entails a total standstill unless permission for an alteration is received from the Ministry. But if what the right hon. Lady yesterday applies, it means that any change in the original agreement would nullify the new Order, despite the great paraphernalia of debate before the Order was made both here and in the Prices and Incomes Board itself.
My hon. Friends and I still maintain the strongest objection to the retrospective aspect of the Clause. We object to it on every ground. It is both unfair and unconstitutional. I hope that the

Under-Secretary will give us a satisfactory explanation and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Albert Booth: When discussing this Clause in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said:
Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have ever tried to pretend that the policy we are now debating is not a more severe version of previous policy; of course, it is."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 30th May, 1968; c. 390.]
That statement was typical of the forthright manner which we have come to expect from my hon. Friend on prices and incomes policy matters. While we can admire his forthright manner, I cannot admire the policy which he advocates in those terms.
As the Clause to which the present Amendment is directed is of such serious importance, I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I ask what may seem a rather simple question. I want to know whether the Minister will have power under this Clause to extend existing standstills on wages awards made under the 1967 Act. If that is so, there will be a new situation in the short history of the prices and incomes policy. We have had resentment at standstills in the past. Hitherto, we have not had to face resentment at the extension of standstills in retrospect. Yet this is what may happen if the Clause goes through unamended.
Will all the standstills which are in force under the 1967 Act at the time when this Bill comes into force be subject to a decision by the Minister on whether they should be extended? This, also, is of crucial importance. If that will be so, why is the power being taken? Does the Minister feel that those who have been subject to a wages standstill under the 1967 Act have not been penalised sufficiently? If that is the argument, it could in logic be extended to the ludicrous point where one sought to further penalise those who had had standstills under the 1966 Act, in order to put everybody in the same position. The Clause as it stands must create anomalies as between those whose standstills run out before the 1968 Bill comes into force and those whose standstills under the 1967 Act run out after that


date, because only the latter category can be caught under the Clause.
At the least, we deserve an explanation from the Under-Secretary of State of how the power is to be used. Will all standstills be subject to extension, or will only some be picked out? If certain standstills are to be picked out, how will they be chosen? What is to be the criterion? It is obvious that one cannot apply to the extension of a standstill the criteria which applied in determining whether there should be a standstill. In other words, one cannot determine whether a wages agreement shall be subject to extension of standstill on the ground that it embodies a productivity element, that it affected low-paid workers, and so on—the criteria with which we are familiar—because all those tests were used to determine that there should be a standstill.
If the Minister is to start picking and choosing between standstills made under the 1967 Act and deciding that some should be extended, new criteria must be applied. Will one criterion be, say, the date when the standstill was applied? Are only the later standstills brought in under the 1967 Act to be caught? If that were done, I should still contend that it would create anomalies. Has the Minister specific cases in mind in which she desires that the standstill should continue? If that is the purpose, it should be stated here and now.
I should like a categorical assurance that standstills on pay awards to certain members of my union are not to be affected under the Clause. There has already been reference to the standstills on pay awards to members of the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians' Association in certain Scottish firms. It is worth spending a few moments on the details of these to test the effect of the Clause. There were three agreements made in December, 1967, affected by Orders: one between the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians' Association and Steels Engineering Installation Ltd.; one between the union and Steel Process Plants Ltd; and one between the union and British Crane and Excavator Corporation. The Orders were made in December, 1967. They were not gazetted until February this year. An Order was laid before Parliament on 14th

June, 1968, which extended these standstills till 19th August.
I may have a nasty, suspicious mind, but one can conveniently assume that by 19th August the new Prices and Incomes Bill will be in operation and, therefore, the standstills must be caught by it. I hope that I am wrong, and if my hon. Friend assures me that I am he can have my most craven apologies. However, if we cannot be given an assurance that men who cannot receive until 19th August a pay award they negotiated last December will not be subject to a further standstill, there will be great resentment among those members of the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians' Association.
I ask my hon. Friend to put himself in the position of anyone who advocated that they should accept the standstill, who said that it was reasonable that they should forgo their pay award for a period of six months, or, in this case, even up to 19th August. What sort of hearing would he receive if it is known that these standstills will be subject to an increased period? I think that there is a danger —and I say this with a full appreciation of the meaning of my words—that those trade union members will reject the proper political solution to the problem which they face under the prices and incomes policy, and that they may seek by the most vigorous industrial action to redress what they consider is a justifiable grievance. If that happens, it will not only damage the working of the Clause but will, as far as those union members and their fellow members are concerned, bring the whole of the Bill down on the head of the Minister in complete ruins.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend to give us an assurance that there is a particular purpose in the Clause, in the Minister taking these powers, and that they will not be used to extend standstills to all those who happen to have been sufficiently unfortunate to have their standstill at such a time that it will still be in operation when the new Act comes into force.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I can well understand the worries of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). It is always said that the soldier has a field marshal's baton in his knapsack. We must now expect every shop steward to have copies of the 1966, 1967 and 1968


Acts in his knapsack and to be able to understand what they are all about. That is the problem which faces and will continue to face all those involved in the normal negotiating processes in their industries.
Most of those people are unpaid in their onerous union posts. They volunteer and they must try to negotiate. After all, the Government have told us enough times that they want to move more towards plant bargaining arrangements rather than national agreements. When we consider the various Acts, we shudder to think of the men on the shop floor trying to understand what they are all about.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of the agreement to which a standstill Order has already been applied. We have been given to understand that the whole idea of the Bill is basically to extend the standstill. It is very difficult to know what is really meant by the Clause. The Amendment is at least much more understandable. When one reads the words which my hon. Friend wants to delete, one realises that every shop steward in the future should sit for a Bar examination before he can start to operate. This backs up my judgment from the very beginning that the Bill, like all the others, is really eyewash and not expected to work. The other Acts and this Bill are really expected to intimidate those who do not even begin to understand what they are all about.
8.15 p.m.
I do not understand what this is all about. As far as I can see it is designed to extend the standstill period in respect of those who have been caught under previous Acts, particularly the 1967 Act, on solemn agreements which they have reached by negotiation with their employers at national or plant level. The Government should at least make certain first that the ordinary negotiator in industry can understand what this is all about. Certainly, he should not have to take three different Acts with him to be able to decide whether he is within or without the law in carrying out his normal duties and responsibilities on behalf of his fellow employees.
This is very important, because there are many thousands of decent, honest citizens throughout the country trying for no extra remuneration to represent their fellow employees before their employers

and to make certain that their fellows shall enjoy the best remuneration possible. Many of them try to make certain that their demands will be tied up with some increase in productivity. Yet they are faced with this sort of Clause, and particularly with the words which my hon. Friend seeks to delete.
The Amendment seeks to delete words which to my mind are gobbledygook and states quite clearly:
… the period to which the said provision is to apply but so that the same shall expire not later than seven months after the making of the said order.
In other words, the Amendment would make certain that any agreement reached by an employer or group of employers with a union or group of unions would be liable to be held up for only seven months after the making of the original order.
I have great admiration for the Undersecretary of State. It was obvious in Committee that he knew a great deal more about the Bill than I do, and he was very helpful to us throughout. I have no complaints to make about his replies in Committee, and he will probably be able to give us a reasonable answer to this point. But I am as worried as the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness that the words which my hon. Friend seeks to delete may mean that those who have been subject to a standstill under the 1967 Act will suddenly find that instead of being able to implement an agreement after seven months, as they could under the original Act, they will have to wait another five, eight or nine months, or whatever it may be, when the Bill becomes an Act.
This is completely intolerable. It makes free negotiation a laughing stock. If a free negotiation is to be held up for 12 or 18 months, it means, as I said yesterday, that the right hon. Lady does not mean what she says when she says that free negotiation ought still to be the order of the day.
It has been said by the right hon. Lady and the Under-Secretary that the Bill is the long-stop to make sure that certain voluntary arrangements cannot be carried out. Where somebody tries to jump the gun through conspiracy between an employer and his employees, as a result of which they have the audacity to come to an arrangement for an increase


in income of more than 3½ per cent., an Order can be made under the Bill to ensure that the agreement shall not be carried out.
This may well be a valid argument in the future with agreements that are reached or have very recently been reached. After all, we all know of the various problems facing the Government. We saw the devaluation problem, and have heard the various statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he has made clear that everybody in the country should be expected to accept a reduction of 2 per cent. in the standard of living. This has been explained to us, and it obviously would be taken into account by both employers and representatives of employees in their negotiations in the recent past or the future.
This is a different matter. Obviously, in taking all this into account they would probably end up with a different sort of agreement to that which was reached six or seven months ago. This is what I am worried about. There may well have been agreements reached six or seven months ago between an employer and his employees or a group of employers and a group of unions, but an Order under the 1967 Act may have prevented the increases from being paid. The extent of the Order under existing legislation could not be for more than seven months. But if we do not accept the Amendment, we may easily have a situation in which the period could be extended for 12 or 18 months.
The Under-Secretary ought to make it clear beyond doubt that the Government's intention is not to catch the sort of case to which the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness referred, which I believe is one which ought to be taken into account, where people have reached an agreement a long time ago but were caught, and are looking forward to the point at which the standstill will end and the agreement reached with their employers will finally come to fruition. I trust that the Under-Secretary will make it clear that these people will not be caught by what would then amount to retrospective legislation.
Having read the parts that my hon. Friend seeks to delete from the Bill, I believe, although I am not a lawyer,

that it is as well that they should be deleted. Any normal person reading the Clause would say, "What does it all mean?" and rush off immediately to his solicitor, who would say, "On the one hand, it could mean this. On the other hand, it could mean that. I think that we ought to brief counsel and get his opinion about the exact meaning of the words." Reading this as a non-lawyer, it seems to me to mean nothing.
I believe that it would be proper to delete these words. That will certainly be in the interests of all engaged in wage negotiations. They will now have to carry three Acts of Parliament in then-pocket, each of which seeks to take away certain of the others. After all, no shop steward can expect to have a solicitor in his pocket all day long. The ordinary man engaged in negotiations ought to be able to understand what the law is. If these words are left in, then a man who has not passed the Bar examination will not have a chance of being able to say with certainty what the law means. In fact, it could mean anything to him.
My hon. Friend's Amendment at least makes it much clearer to everyone that if an agreement has been reached before the Act comes into operation and if there has been a decision by the Government that it should be held up for a period, the total time that it is held up will not be more than seven months. I believe that this is a fair point, and because the Amendment is so eminently fair and because it seeks to delete from the Bill what I question whether anybody other than a lawyer could understand, I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I did not hear the earlier part of the debate, so it would be improper for me to address the House at any length on the Amendment. I rise very briefly to appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider earnestly whether the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
One of the things worrying some of my hon. Friends and me about the Bill is the way in which it is an escalation on previous legislation—on the Act of 1966 and the Act of 1967. The Bill goes wider than those Acts in a number of respects. It lengthens the period of standstill and gives the Government powers greater than they contained. It brings


in groups of workers, such as the agricultural workers, who were not included in the previous Acts. It extends the period of operation very considerably.
We had one year under the 1966 Act and one year under the 1967 Act. We have a year and a half under this Bill. We have no assurance that there will not be a 1969 Bill. If there is, on the simple line of arithmetical progression it will cover two years and then the 1971 Bill will cover three years or whatever it may be. This gives cause for concern.
We must always recall that this legislation was originally introduced as one time legislation, not to be repeated, and the more I take part in the proceedings on the Bill the more I have brought home to me the French proverb that the only thing which lasts forever is a temporary thing. That is what looks like happening with this legislation.
If the Government cannot give an assurance that this legislation is not to go on indefinitely, at least they should be willing to write in a provision removing the element of escalation. I am sure that the arguments on merits have been deployed and it is on the ground of trying to stop the arithmetical progression of ever greater powers and ever lengthening operation that I urge the Government to give the most sympathetic consideration to accepting the Amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Hattersley: Since the operation of the Amendment is dependent upon powers implicit or explicit in the Clause, I want to correct two or three misapprehensions about the nature of the Clause. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) was kind enough to describe me as an expert on the Bill. I must correct him on that, as I have done before. I am an expert on the experts on the Bill, which is a different matter.
The hon. Member said that, as far as he could see, it would be possible to extend an Order so that it would impose a standstill for 18 months. He will be relieved to know that this is not the case. It is made clear in the Clause that the power exists
… within the limits permitted by section 1(2)(b) or 3(1) … 
and this clearly limits the operation to a maximum period of 11 months, which is the operative and important figure.
What we seek to do, as my right hon. Friend made clear in Committee, is to operate a policy of transition. She told the Standing Committee that there are in the Bill provisions for phasing out when we get to the end of the period it covers—the end of the 18 months. She asked the Committee to accept that it was reasonable to say that, if the policy should be phased out, it should be phased in.
I ask hon. Members to put themselves in the position of the Government, committed to the idea that a prices and incomes policy with statutory backing is necessary at this time. Is it not reasonable that the Government should ask that that policy be organised in such a way that its operation begins smoothly and does not begin arbitrarily? Let us consider a case where an order has been made under existing powers and should be continued when the life of the new Bill begins.
If it seems necessary for the Government to have power to postpone a wage or price increase for up to a year, it would be unreasonable to say, "We believe that the national interest requires us occasionally to postpone this increase for up to a year but we cannot do it in this case because, by coincidence, it falls between the date on which the first Act lapses and the date on which this Bill becomes law."
Although by our judgment it would be in the national interest to postpone the increase, under the Amendment we could not do it because of some arbitrary distinction of date and time.

Mr. John Page: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman very carefully. He said that there might be a moment when there could be a particular situation which could fall into the gap between the two powers. Is that possible unless, as the hon. Gentleman may expect, he will not get the Bill? If he gets the Bill before 12th August, he will have powers up to 11th August and the new powers thereafter. I do not see that there will be any gap.

Mr. Hattersley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is listening carefully. I wish that he had listened a little longer, because I was trying to meet exactly that point. Clearly, the gap is a gap of a


different sort. In a sense, there will be an overlap of powers for the variety of dates which we are recommending the House to accept.
What I mean by referring to a gap is that a category of workers, whom I will try to specify later, may have been adjudged by the National Board for Prices and Incomes to be asking for a wage increase which is unjustifiable, or a manufacturer or distributor may have been adjudged to be asking for a price increase which is unjustifiable, and we shall have applied to one or to both an order limiting the level of remuneration or price. Suddenly, the Bill will come into operation and suddenly we shall have taken powers to impose a standstill for up to a year.
Yet, because of what is simply an accident of time, we would be bound to say, but for this Clause, that, although it was our judgment that a year's postponement was reasonable, we could not enforce it because of the dates and the way in which they fell. I put it to the House that for a Government, committed as we are to a prices and incomes policy, to allow that sort of situation to come about would be not only inconsistent, but irresponsible.

Mr. Booth: I am listening very carefully to my hon. Friend's words. How can he call an accident of time what is in fact a period precisely chosen and legislated for barely a year ago, when it was provided that anybody subject to a wages standstill for a period of 12 months, would have the maximum period of standstill of exactly that period? That is not an accident of time; it is deliberate and precise policy.

Mr. Hattersley: I justify it by quoting again my own words, doing so with some embarrassment. These are the words which I used in Committee, although at this moment I have forgotten the exact detail of what I said. I said that I had never sought to disguise the fact that this prices and incomes policy was a policy of more severity than that which we operated last year. That is certainly the case and that in our view is certainly the necessity. I believe that to describe it as what has evolved is an accurate description of the position.
What I mean by an accident of time is that we are in a situation in which more severe powers are necessary, in which this tougher policy is an obligation upon the Government, and yet we would be unable to use these powers in specific cases because of the date on which an Order lapsed. To tie ourselves in that arbitrary way would, I repeat, be not only unreasonable, but irresponsible.

Mr. Robert Carr: Can we get this quite clear? As I understand, about a year ago Parliament passed an Act which, whether we agreed with it or not, told the people what the law would be until 11th August this year. It seems to all of us on this side of the House that what the Government are now saying is that they will override what Parliament said last year, that they will pass a Bill, which will come into operation at some date not yet known, and override what Parliament said should be the law until 11th August, this year. We think that that is wrong constitutionally.

Mr. Hattersley: What the right hon. Gentleman said is historically right, that about a year ago Parliament decided what the law of the land should be. I am now asking the House to revise its view of what the law of the land should be from this moment. What I am asking is that from this moment the law should enable the Government to impose a standstill, which might well amount to an Order in specific circumstances. I am asking the House to authorise a change in the law, an adaptation of the law, which applies from now, which is an immediate thing and which operates when the Bill begins to operate and not before.

Mr. Emery: Mr. Emery rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I will not give way. I have been very generous about giving way and I think that the House would like some progress to be made.
Let me try to explain to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) the sort of cases which might conceivably be covered by an Order as opposed to those which might not. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that a number of cases which are under consideration by the N.B.P.I. are cases which we have in mind, for two reasons. First, those cases which will not be the subject


of an N.B.P.I. report until after the Bill becomes law do not need Clause 3(4) for a full eight months standstill to be imposed.
The other reason, which is the crucial reason, why the hon. Gentleman is wrong is that we do not have any cases in mind. If he is asking for a categorical assurance that these Clauses do not appear because my right hon. Friend and her colleagues and I have in mind the specific items, groups and organisations which we are determined to embrace in an enlarged standstill, I can give him an absolute assurance that the idea of this specific application is not in the Government's mind. What is in the Government's mind is the problem of consistency and the application of the prices and incomes policy as we believe it to be necessary.
I must say two things about two specific groups which my hon. Friend suggested were not only in our mind, but, he would probably say, at the forefront of our mind. It is certainly my right hon. Friend's hope, and I believe that it is the House's hope, that there will be no need even to examine these groups of workers in terms of Clause 3(4) because they and their unions and managements will have come to an agreement which enables them to go on without the application of the prices and incomes policy.
If my hon. Friend wants evidence of our hope in that regard—and I put it as no more than evidence of our hope; certainly, it is not evidence that the hope is bound to be realised—he may be interested to know that the numerically largest group to which he refers, the municipal busmen, will have representatives of the workers' and employees' side of their national joint council meeting my right hon. Friend tomorrow. This is one of a series of meetings which, it is the Government's devout hope, will result in a settlement of the bus dispute so that this no longer requiries the application of the prices and incomes policy. I give that information, not as a prediction that a satisfactory settlement will be the outcome, but to remind hon. Members of our constant efforts to enable agreements to be made and prices to be arranged which do not need the application of the prices and incomes policy.
We do not ask for retention of this Clause because we anticipate that it will automatically be needed in any specific cases. We ask for its retention because without it the Government would operate a policy which I can only describe as an unnatural break in its application. I hope that the House will accept that our motive simply is to make a smooth transition and to enable us to operate the powers as we believe necessary, with all the safeguards, checks and Parliamentary control required.
The hon. Member described the paraphernalia of debate which must go into every order. I imagine that I shall remind him during the night, when he and his hon. Friends say that there is inadequate consideration, in a Parliamentary sense, of each Order which we make, that his description—"paraphernalia of debate"—is somewhat of an exaggeration. But there is the opportunity of debate on every Order which applies to Clause 3(4). There are all the other safeguards essential for running the policy. We believe that Clause 3(4) is a just Clause which we hope the House will agree to retain in the Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Emery: I waited for the Minister's reply in the ardent hope that it would not be necessary for me to make a speech. I indicated to him that I should be delighted if he spoke first in the hope that I would not have to make a speech. Nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to hear that the Government were willing to accept the principle of the Amendment. After all, it is not just we on this side of the House who are urging this upon the hon. Gentleman. It comes about because of the ultimate fairness that the Amendment sets out to establish.
I turn now to two of the arguments put forward by the Under-Secretary in urging rejection of this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman suggested that because in Committee we expressed the wish to see the policy phased out properly, it was right that it should be phased in properly. I do not need to remind the hon. Gentleman that that is a slight elaboration of the facts. We wanted the policy phased out absolutely on the last day of 1969. We did not want any phasing out; we wanted it stopped. But, because the Bill allowed for the extension of certain of these powers if


Orders were made on the last day of 1969 to be extended for another 12 months, we thought this was wrong.
Therefore, we suggested that that period should be limited, and this came to be known as the proper phasing out. We were willing to go along with that, because we believed that we persuaded the Government to go along with it. To suggest that because we had persuaded the Government to go along with it we should have a variation of phasing in, as it is termed, in order that we can have retrospection on the manner of the application of the standstill, is a travesty of proper argument. It is not right to suggest that, because we wanted phasing out, we should have this kind of action to phase the matter in.
In the same way the hon. Gentleman suggested that hon. Members on this side of the House would realise the need for a prices and incomes policy with proper statutory backing. We spent many hours on this matter in Committee. I would have hoped that, I, if not my hon. Friends, had been able to get this matter across to the Under-Secretary. Only yesterday I said that we considered that there should be a prices and incomes policy, but that it should be a voluntary one, not compulsory, because if we bring in compulsion we need the kind of action that the Amendment seeks to avoid.
The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "an accident of time". The Undersecretary chooses his words with great care. But to suggest that, when we have established in this House how long the Orders may be granted for a standstill, we should give power for them to be extended and that this is an accident of time is misuse of the English language. The Government, not by accident but by scheming and legislation, are increasing the power to extend. That is not any accident. It is a cool, definite calculation. I therefore feel that this is a very strange use of language.
The Under-Secretary spoke about the overlap. The only reason that I could see for his worry was that, in attempting to oppose the Bill, as we have, he would not get it by his set date of August. Nothing would please me more. If the hon. Gentleman had argued that we need action to catch any period when we have

not got the Bill, that I can understand. It is not an argument I should like to go along with, but it is one that I can understand. Evidently, that was not the argument that the hon. Gentleman was propounding.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who referred in Committee to the great knowledge of the Under-Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman does not like to be called an expert. He likes to be known as an expert on experts, but it was only too apparent that when he was in charge of the Committee things went fairly smoothly. When the right hon. Lady was there she proved that she was neither an expert nor an expert on experts. That is what many of us are concerned about.
Subsection (3)(a) contains unbelievable verbiage, and perhaps I might quote it to prove my point:
(a) an order shall not be amended by a further order under this subsection unless the like notice has been given of the proposal to make the further order as is required by section 1 or 3 of the Prices and Incomes Act 1967 for orders under section 1(2)(b) or 3(1) of that Act; and".
That is not even a complete sentence. If anyone understands what it means he is a better man than 99 per cent. of the Members of this House.
What worries us is that the powers in the Bill are hidden in dubious language and words which nobody can understand. I tried to table a new Schedule to interpret some of the phrases used by the Government. The words which I have quoted allow the Government to increase the standstill period of an order even when a pledge has been given that that order shall last for only a given period. I do not believe that anyone, either in this House or outside it, can gather what the Government mean by that phraseology. First we have to wait, then there is a standstill order, then there is an overlay, and finally there is a standstill extension. I find it particularly difficult to judge the hardship which we are trying to ameliorate.
I know that it is always unpleasant to have one's words brought back to one, but I think that I must again quote from what was said in Committee. The Undersecretary of State said:
The doubling of the total standstill period is essentially the aspect of the policy which makes it more severe.


We all asked why it was essential, and the hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Why, my hon. Friend says, do we choose to make it more severe now? Is it because of previous failures? No, it is not that. It is not because of previous failures; it is because of future success."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 30th May, 1968; c. 390.]
If the policy has not failed in the past, what the devil does the Under-Secretary of State mean by suggesting that we have to extend the powers to make something which has not failed a future success? The Government are using words to confuse ordinary people who are trying to follow what the Government are doing. There is no doubt that the policy has not failed, and I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to intervene to tell me the instances in which he thinks the standstill Orders have failed.
If the right hon. Gentleman can give me an example I shall be grateful, but unless he can it is clear that there has not been any failure. If that is so, there cannot be any reason for this retrospective extension—unless it is to set a seal on the Government's policy generally to reduce wage levels and so reduce the general standard of living. It is because we feel that such a course should not be allowed that we have moved the Amendment.
It is not that the Government are clear about this question; indeed, in the debate so far Government spokesmen have hardly mentioned the nil norm. The policy is propounded for the future on the concept that, unless there is a productivity bonus—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now going far beyond the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. Emery: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had no intention of so doing.
Let me show exactly how I seek to bring this argument within the terms of the Amendment. The Amendment seeks to prevent the extension. The extension will be necessary if certain criteria are not met under the new Statutory Instrument. If the criteria are not met, the Government may have it in mind to prolong the standstill.
What worries me is that people now seem to be talking about the 3½ per cent. not as a ceiling but as an accepted thing. I was pointing out that that is not the

criterion, and that the extension might be used on the nil norm argument. That being so, we believe that the Amendment is necessary. I hope that I have made clear the relevance to the Amendment of what I am saying.
We consider that there has not been a failure and that when the Minister said in Committee that greater hardship was caused by the standstill, it was a question of hardship for hardship's sake. Unless it can be shown that there has been a failure there can be no other reason.
The Minister said that there is no intention of the question of retrospection being applied in specific cases. He said, "I give this absolute assurance." It is a very strange coincidence that two of the most difficult cases, such as the D.A.T.A. case and the case of the busmen, could be caught. The Under-Secretary has said that negotiations are commencing. Both he and I hope that they come to something, but he knows the militancy which exists in both sides and he will realise that there can be no guarantee of success, especially in view of the fact—whether or not there is a standstill—that we have to consider the hardship aspect which has applied in respect of previous awards in both cases. We are not neglecting what the Minister says when we mention that it is a strange coincidence that both these difficult cases could be caught by the Clause as it stands.
9.0 p.m.
The Amendment sets out in subsection (4)(a) to deal with Section l(2)(b) or 3(1) of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1967. The Amendment does not do away with the standstill. The Act as it previously applied is left with the 30 days and the six months' extension. This is what exists now, but it was not made clear by the Under-Secretary of State.
Secondly, we are trying to ensure that the paragraphs dealt with in the Schedules which affect this Part of the Bill would not necessarily have to operate. I will not go into the details, because there are other hon. Members who want to speak.
The position is that the House says quite clearly and absolutely that the period of standstill shall be 30 days plus six months, and certain people are suffering under that standstill. If the Amendment is not acceptable, powers are given to the Government to say, although they


have given their word that this is what the standstill shall be, that no wage increase shall be granted for another extended period. We consider this to be an escalation of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) used that phrase time and again in Committee. I used the phrase "geometric progression". The powers needed each time are not just doubled, they are quadrupled. Each time we are told that there will be no extension, the powers will not be used, but they will be taken anyway. Each time the powers are used more or less immediately, and then within 12 months we are back again. It is quite wrong that the House should allow this to continue.
Here, for the first time, we see retrospection. I wonder how much more retrospection we shall see in the next Bill, applied either to wage awards, prices or dividends. Once one starts, one does not know where it will lead. Therefore, I believe that my hon. Friend was quite right to suggest that it is essential that the power of retrospection should be limited, and the way to do that is to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Tom Boardman: The Parliamentary Secretary referred, as did the right hon. Lady in Committee, to this being a phasing-in Bill. They also referred to phasing-out at the end, and we had a long debate which I must not open now. Does phasing-in imply that, without the objectionable Clause which we are trying to amend, all the powers of the Government would come to an end on 11th August next? Of course that is not so. The Under-Secretary of State did not intend to imply that this would be so, but this was the inference from the words used, that it is essential to phase-in the new policy.
The powers that allow a seven-month period extended to twelve months may be tidy. There may otherwise be gaps which would have to be filled by going through the full procedure of reference and so on. That is not the point. The point is, is it fair? The answer must be that this provision is monstrously unfair, since it means that a body of workers who have been sentenced—I use that word because the powers are punitive

—under the previous Act to seven months can have it extended without further trial up to eighteen months.
We should consider the original circumstances to see what differences could have arisen by the time of the extension. The original sentence was under one Act and the extension will be under another, which was not even thought of at the time of the sentence. We were told that that Measure would be once and for all and another Act was not then contemplated. It was the result of one reference to the Prices and Incomes Board, which had before it facts obtaining at that time, including the cost of living at that time. The seven months which are running out and which will be extended by eleven months—

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue, but I would not like it to be read in HANSARD tomorrow. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will, I think, recall that the powers which we seek under the Clause will enable us to extend the standstill not for another eleven months but for up to eleven months, and that is a very different thing.

Mr. Boardman: I am obliged for that correction, but the same principle applies. It is the extension of a previous sentence which was passed under criteria which are not applicable today. One does not know whether, if today's criteria had applied originally, the sentence would have been the same. Some of the current Orders, which will be extended, were made before the effect of the Budget and the steeply rising prices which followed. One wonders whether, with today's prices, Orders made eight months ago would have been used differently by the Board. The original Orders were made in one set of circumstances and against one set of values, yet without any retrial, without a further reference to the Board, or a fresh Report from it, that period is to be extended.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) drew a dramatic parallel in Committee when he said:
I suggest that that is rather like the House of Commons deciding to re-introduce the death penalty as from 12th August and saying that anybody convicted of murder before 12th August shall be hanged after 12th August.
He drew an accurate parallel there. The right hon. Lady's reply was no clearer


than most of the comments she has made about the Bill, for she said:
That is a very graphic comparison, but it is not valid. I say to the right hon. Gentleman straight away, ' Yes. That is exactly what subsection (4) does'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 30th May, 1968; c. 414.]
Perhaps hon. Members understand which way she meant that to be read. It fitted my right hon. Friend's anology of sentencing a man to life imprisonment, then changing the law subsequent to the sentence and pulling him out of gaol and hanging him. Perhaps my right hon. Friend gave too coloured a graphic description for it to be entirely fair, but it illustrated our objection to the Clause and the reason for the Amendment. It is one thing for the Bill to be unpopular, wrong and ineffective. It is even worse if it is clearly and demonstratively unjust, as it will be if the Amendment is not accepted.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Having listened to this discussion, having read the Bill and having studied the Minister's comments, I now understand exactly what the Government mean by their prices and incomes policy.
They introduce a No. 1 Bill one year, a No. 2 Bill the next year and a No. 3 Bill the following year. They then cross reference them all so that one cannot understand which Clause in which Bill applies to what. And even if one is an M.P. and consults one's lawyer, one still cannot understand what the legislation means. It is understandable why employers cannot understand what refers to what—and the same applies with even greater force to the average trade unionist on the shop floor.
Having gone to all that trouble, the Government then say, "All the penal Clauses in the Bill will never be used anyway because we will so scare people with the complexity of this legislation that they will be afraid to do anything lest they get into difficulties." The result is that the Government are able to get away with it for a longer period as one Measure follows another, each Bill wrapped up in the one that preceded it.
This was called "escalation" by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), last night his right hon. Friend called it "evolving", my hon. Friend the

Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) called it "geometric progression" and the Under-Secretary described it as "phasing in"—that the Clause was justified because it enabled the Government to phase in the legislation more smoothly. This is fine for the Government, and I have no doubt that the right hon. Lady wants the legislation to be smooth. But is it good for those who must have their pay increases restricted, have a three months' standstill imposed on them by the previous Measure and suddenly find that they are involved in a 12 months' standstill? Nor is it really a 12 months' standstill because the previous standstill of three months was imposed under different conditions.
9.15 p.m.
One thing which applies under this Bill did not apply before. The right hon. Lady made a great play with this. She almost said last night that the 1966 Bill and the 1967 Bill were of no account and that the only Bill which mattered, presumably because it is her Bill, was the Bill of 1968. She said it was important because for the first time she, her right hon. Friends and the Ministry were much more involved in productivity and were going to propagate throughout management the need for productivity. She said that a group of work people organised in a trade union and seeking an increase, if they could prove that it was justified on productivity grounds, would be given an increase over and above the 3½ per cent.
We have now reached the stage where the Government accept that 3½ per cent., the present restricted amount of across the board increase, is a minimum. There was a time when the Prime Minister said that 3½ per cent. was an increase within which the optimum should be contained. I would be interested if—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member can go into that question on this Amendment. I must ask him to confine himself to this Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to point out the difference between the three months' restriction and the standstill which is that we are now governed by productivity whereas before we were not governed by productivity. The Under-Secretary mentioned two cases, likely to come before his


Ministry, the D.A.T.A. case and the busmen's case. He seemed very optimistic that those two cases would be absolved from any restriction and that the matter would be settled without having to go to the Prices and Incomes Board, that they would be settled within the criteria laid down by the Government. I do not know why he was so optimistic, but I hope that he was right.
The hon. Gentleman is putting himself into the position of being able to select in advance the kind of cases which, caught as they are under the present three-month overlap, will in fact escape it. Certain people will be caught with a three-month restriction, and that will be extended to seven months which will bring the period up to 11 months while others will get away scot-free. This is unfair and arbitrary. In equity the Government should accept this Amendment.
The hon. Gentleman said that it would be wrong for the Government to tie themselves, but what about the people who are involved? We understand that the Government do not want to tie themselves, but the success of the policy, the Government having a loose rein, does not matter very much to the Government. If they look at this sensibly they would recognise that so far as they give confidence to trade unions and management that they will deal with this matter equitably their policy is more likely to work. It is not likely to work if it is thought that large groups of workers are selected to have an advantage over other groups and that they are being favoured, whether that favour is based on productivity—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing an Amendment which is very specific.

Mr. Lewis: I recognise that, Sir. I have tried to keep to the Amendment, which deals with the whole question of the standstill period and whether there should be an overlap. I accept that you, Sir, did not hear the first part of my speech, which was probably to your considerable advantage.
The whole question of this standstill and the overlap is not something which the Government should determine only in so far as it provides them with a legislative, or even an administrative, advantage. If the Government do this, their

policy may evolve, or it may escalate, but it means the end of negotiations. With a prices and incomes policy operating or not, we on this side believe that good relations between the unions will continue. I therefore hope that the Minister will think again and accept this reasonable Amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I want to add a word of protest about the Government's refusal to accept the Amendment. It is very much as if a man was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and a subsequent Act of Parliament enabled that term to be extended. Although the current penalty for an offence may be changed at a later date, those who are suffering the disability should not be penalised by future legislation and made to suffer longer under duress.
Another example is where one had paid a certain amount of tax on a year's income, as prescribed by the law, and where at a later date one was asked to pay more Income Tax because a new Act of Parliament had changed the terms upon which tax was computed.
In this case, in a given set of economic circumstances, an Order can be made restraining a pay increase for a group of workers and the Order will be current for three months. If the Bill becomes law—I very much hope that it will not —the period can be extended to 11 months, although the extension is done under new powers and it might be done in totally different economic circumstances.
After all, wage increases play an important part in an economic system. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was kind enough last night to pay me a compliment. I do not think it was meant to be. He said that I always tried to bring a little economic basis into the arguments that I advanced against what the Government were trying to do. I was very grateful for the compliment. I want to ensure that tonight I do not fail to bring into my argument a tiny bit of economics.
Wage increases play a real part in our economic life. If wages go up, the effect is to attract more workers into the particular trade, company or industry. If wages are held down, the effect is that that part of the economy loses workers;


they will tend to drift elsewhere. All this is part of the delicate market mechanism.
Therefore, if an Order made in one set of economic circumstances is extended, it may well be extended in a totally different set of economic circumstances. There might, for instance, have been a new productivity bargain in the meantime. We discussed this on an earlier Amendment, and the Government were not prepared to accept that a new productivity bargain was an excuse for a new policy to prevail. They insist on retaining the powers although a new productivity bargain may have been made. I cannot accept that. It would be a perfectly valid change in the economic circumstances of the group of workers concerned against whom an Order had been made.
It is wrong simply to say, "This Order has been current under the old powers for three months, so we shall clap on an eight-months' extension irrespective of any new circumstances". The cost of living may have risen. The cost of living is not treated specifically as a ground for allowing a wage rise, but we have the criterion in the White Paper:
where there is general recognition that existing wage and salary levels are too low to maintain a reasonable standard of living".
Under this Government, practically every one is near the floor. Their avowed intention is to reduce the standard of living by 1 per cent. this year, and they are succeeding very well. More and more people are coming within that third criterion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Earlier this evening, I thanked the hon. Gentleman. He must listen to me now. The Amendment is designed to limit the standstill period to seven months. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment at some time.

Mr. Ridley: I am attempting to stick strictly to the Amendment, Mr. Speaker. I am setting out the argument that a certain set of economic circumstances dictated the making of the Order in the first place and that, if the Order is to be extended, a different set of economic circumstances may then prevail. However, in view of what you have said, Sir, I do not pursue that a moment longer, recog-

nising that it might be on the edge of order.
We had a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer in Committee on this point. The right hon. Lady said that she would give an example of the sort of case she had in mind in which an Order current under the old powers would have to be extended under these powers, the process which we are trying to prevent by the Amendment. She said:
Let me give the sort of example of what will inevitably be transitional situations … For example, it might be necessary between now and the enactment of the Bill for me to refer someone "—
thinking of Mr. Hambro again, perhaps—
to the Board on grounds of either pay or prices. This would be done under my current powers because the Bill had not been enacted— current powers under which a three-months' standstill operates while the Board reports. Should the Board report adversely, the three months could be extended to a maximum of 12 months under the new powers, although the reference was made under the old. This is inevitable. I repeat, there is a transitional period in and there is a transitional period out.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 30th May, 1968; c. 412–3.]
That means absolutely nothing. I have pondered over that example many times since the right hon. Lady gave it. What it means is that the Order under which she stopped someone or a group of people on the previous occasion was current for only three months and under her new powers, she can go to 11 months more, so instead of making a new Order she wants to be able to make the old Order last much longer.
9.30 p.m.
We need a given law. How we behave economically and the decisions we take are conditioned by the law at the time they are taken. To say that because a wage increase was ruled out and stopped by an Order the Government have power to prolong the Order under subsequent legislation, is to say that a man serving a limited prison sentence under certain Acts can have it extended by a later Act. This is not a sane thing for the Government to do.
This leap-frogging of Bills from year to year, this essentially ephemeral policy, with a new set of criteria and a new set of powers every few months, always in sndlessly varying economic circumstances, almost makes the ordinary citizen unable to behave in a rational economic


way. I concede that the Government have every right and power to enact legislation to control wages, though I disagree with it. When they produce an Act, as they did in 1967 which is operative until mid-August, 1968, we must all accept its consequences and do the best we can.
But then another Bill is introduced which should operate from the ending of the old Act, 12th August, 1968, and will be current for a further 18 months. It contains certain penal powers, delaying powers, criteria, and so on. To mix the two up is to try to have the best of both worlds, to prolong the sentences which people received under the previous Act. This is not in the right tradition of legislation. I do not believe that it helps people to make economic sense of what they are trying to do, and I do not believe that the Government has any right to do it.
I very much hope that even at this late hour the Government will accept the Amendment, because this is the sort of silly little thing which makes the legislation which the Government are always introducing unworkable and a farce.

Mr. John Page: Again and again during the discussion of the Amendment my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have explained how difficult the Bill, particularly this Clause, is to understand. This is legislation by reference with a vengeance. When the 1969–70 Prices and Incomes Act comes in I suppose that we shall have further references to the present Bill as well as the 1966 and 1967 Acts.
I should like to remind the Undersecretary of State of a mini-undertaking given in Committee that when the Bill became an Act a simple guide to what it means will be issued for the use of people in industry, the trade unions, journalists and others.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a Third Reading point. I hope that he will come to the Amendment.

Mr. Page: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Only the constant reference to the difficulty of comprehension reminded me of this.
We are still worried by what we consider to be an inadequate answer by the

Under-Secretary. His hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) made a most interesting and practical contribution to the debate. He pointed out the significance which the Clause is said to hold by members of D.A.T.A. Then we had the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) making the same point with regard to busmen.
The Under-Secretary said in his reply that the Government were not putting the Clause into the Bill with the specific intention of catching any group of workpeople. We thank him for giving us that undertaking. But I would press him to go a little further. If the Amendment is not accepted, will he give an undertaking that those against whom orders are now standing will not be treated as if the Bill had been passed and that he will not invoke this Clause?

Mr. Hattersley: That seems to me to be the most extraordinary undertaking for which a member of a Government has ever been asked. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to assume that the Clause stands as the Government wants it to stand and the Amendment is defeated, and then promise to act as if the Amendment had been carried. I think that he will, on reflection, see that that is a rather unreasonable request to make.

Mr. Page: It is not entirely unreasonable. To quote from the hon. Gentleman, if he had waited a little longer 1 should have explained to him why he could accept that and give the undertaking.
The first reason is the very small number of people who are present covered by an Order. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is obsessed with the gap and afraid that the overlap will not be sufficient and that he may slip between the twin beds of 1967 and 1968 and find himself in an uncomfortable position. I do not see that this is necessary. I am suggesting to the hon. Gentleman—I am meeting him in my request for an assurance which I previously asked for—that if he introduces any more references or orders before the Bill becomes an Act we shall expect him to ignore Clause 3(4) for these. We are asking him to ignore it only for those which are already in existence.
I am disappointed that the Undersecretary has not been able to meet my


hon. Friends and his hon. Friends on their very reasonable objections to a gross example of retrospective legislation. He tried to explain it as transitional, bridging and phasing. It is not; it is retrospective legislation. If the same approach were applied to the Finance Bill it would mean that any new tax considered to be right for the Government to have after the Budget or after the Finance Bill was passed would apply to all transactions before that date. That attitude to retrospection is not respectable and not in the usual cases adopted. We feel that here his right hon. Friend is not acting fairly and constitutionally.
Finally, the Under-Secretary did not respond to my request for an explanation of his right hon. Friend's statement yesterday that if an agreement which was covered by an Order were changed, the order would fall. This particularly applies where we have this Amendment, which seeks to remove the power to extend Orders. If it were possible for the hon. Gentleman to be allowed just to inform the House how great a change will have to be made in an agreement for an Order to fall, it would be helpful in discussing the Amendment.

Mr. Hattersley: Clearly, the Orders are tied to agreements and if a new agreement were made the Order tied to the old agreement would no longer be operative. This is the point my right hon. Friend made yesterday. She said that if an agreement was the subject of a standstill as a result of its being outside the policy—for example, a flat rate increase—and if the parties negotiated a productivity agreement in its place, the standstill on the old agreement would not apply to the new one. Orders are tied to agreements, and if a new agreement is made this must mean a new order if we wish the standstill to continue.

Mr. Page: I will study the hon. Gentleman's words in HANSARD tomorrow to see whether I fully understand them. However, they have made the position clearer than the right hon. Lady made it yesterday. But it is disappointing that we have not had an effective removal of our fears and I am afraid that it will be necessary for us to divide the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 270.

Division No. 245.]
AYES
[9.44 p.m


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gibson-Watt, David


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clark, Henry
Cilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Astor, John
Clegg, Walter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Cooke, Robert
Glover, Sir Douglas


Awdry, Daniel
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Goodhart, Philip


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Cordle, John
Coodhew, Victor


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Corfield, F. V.
Gower, Raymond


Batsford, Brian
Costain, A. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grieve, Percy


Bell, Ronald
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crouch, David
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Crowder, F. P.
Gurden, Harold


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Biffen, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Biggs-Davison, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Dance, James
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Black, Sir Cyril
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Blaker, Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Body, Richard
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hastings, Stephen


Bossom, Sir Clive
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hay, John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Braine, Bernard
Donnelly, Desmond
Heseltine, Michael


Brewis, John
Doughty, Charles
Higgins, Terence L.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Drayson, G. B.
Hiley, Joseph


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hill, J. E. B.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eden, Sir John
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bryan, Paul
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Holland, Philip


Bullus, Sir Eric
Emery, Peter
Hooson, Emlyn


Burden, F. A.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hordern, Peter


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Eyre, Reginald
Hornby, Richard


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Farr, John
Howell, David (Guildford)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fisher, Nigel
Hunt, John


Cary, Sir Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Channon, H. P. G.
Fortescue, Tim
Iremonger, T. L.




Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Silvester, Frederick


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Jopling, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Speed, Keith


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stainton, Keith


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Neave, Airey
Stodart, Anthony


Kershaw, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Kimball, Marcus
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer


Kirk, Peter
Nott, John
Tapsell, Peter


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Lane, David
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Teeling, Sir William


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Temple, John M.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Peel, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Percival, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Lloyd Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Peyton, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Longden, Gilbert
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Loveys, W. H.
Pink, R. Bonner
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lubbock, Eric
Pounder, Rafton
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wall, Patrick


MacArthur, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walters, Dennis


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Prior, J. M. L.
Ward, Dame Irene


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pym, Francis
Weatherill, Bernard


Macleod Rt. Hn. lain
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Webster, David


McMaster, Stanley
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Maddan, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Maginnis, John E.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Maude, Angus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mawby, Ray
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Woodnutt, Mark


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Robson Brown, Sir William
Worsley, Marcus


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wylie, N. R.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rossi, Hugh (Horntey)
Younger, Hn. George


Miscampbell, Norman
Royle, Anthony



Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Russell, Sir Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Monro, Hector
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


More, Jasper
Scott-Hopkins, James





NOES


Abse, Leo
Coleman, Donald
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Albu, Austen
Concannon, J. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Alldritt, Walter
Conlan, Bernard
Foley, Maurice


Allen, Scholefield
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Anderson, Donald
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ford, Ben


Archer, Peter
Crawshaw, Richard
Forrester, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Cronin, John
Fowler, Gerry


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Freeson, Reginald


Barnes, Michael
Dafyell, Tam
Galpern, Sir Myer


Baxter, William
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Gardner, Tony


Bence, Cyril
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Ginsburg, David


Bennett James (G'gow Bridgeton)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Binns John
Davies, G. E1fed (Rhondda, E.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Griffiths, Eddie


Boston, Terence
Delargy, Hugh
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Bottomlye, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dell, Edmund
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Boyden, James
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)




Hamling, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dobson, Ray
Hannan, William


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Harper, Joseph


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dunn, James A.
Harrison, Waltar (Wakefield)


Brooks, Edwin
Dunnett, Jack
Haseldine, Norman


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hattersley, Roy


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Henig, Stanley


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Edelman, Maurice
Hilton, W. S.


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ellis, John
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
English, Michael
Howie, W.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ennals, David
Hoy, James


Cant, R. B.
Ensor, David
Huckfield, Leslie


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hunter, Adam


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Faulds, Andrew
Hynd, John


Coe, Denis
Fernyhough, E.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)







Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Molloy, William
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Moorman, Eric
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N. E.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Skeffington, Arthur


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Slater, Joseph


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Moyle, Roland
Small, William


Kelley, Richard
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Snow, Julian


Kenyon, Clifford
Murray, Albert
Spriggs, Leslie


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Neal, Harold
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Lawson, George
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Leadbitter, Ted
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ledger, Ron
Oakes, Gordon
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ogden, Eric
Swingler, Stephen


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
O'Malley, Brian
Symonds, J. B.


Lestor, Miss Joan
Oram, Albert E.
Taverne, Dick


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Lipton, Marcus
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Tinn, James


Lomas, Kenneth
Palmer, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael


Loughlin, Charles
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Luard, Evan
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Varley, Eric G.


Lyon, Alexander w. (York)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McBride, Neil
Pavitt, Laurence
Wallace, George


MacColl, James
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Watkins, David (Consett)


MacDermot, Niall
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Macdonald, A. H.
Pentland, Norman
Weitzman, David


McGuire, Michael
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McKay, Mis. Margaret
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitlock, William


Mackie, John
Probert, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Mackintosh, John P.
Randall, Harry
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Maclennan, Robert
Rankin, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Richard, Ivor
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Manual, Archie
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c as)
Winnick, David


Marks, Kenneth
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Marquand, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Woof, Robert


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Roebuck, Roy
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Yates, Victor


Maxwell, Robert
Rose, Paul



Mayhew, Christopher
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Mr. Harry Gourlay and


Millan, Bruce
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Miller, Dr. M. s.
Sheldon, Robert

Mr. Hattersley: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 3, line 4, leave out from 'Where' to 'under' and insert:
'in connection with a reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes a standstill on an award or settlement is or has been imposed or continued'.

Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested to me that we take with Amendment No. 31 Amendment No. 32, in page 3, line 8, leave out from 'settlement' to 'shall' in line 9, and Amendment No. 33 in page 3, line 14, leave out from 'further' to 'in' and insert 'standstill shall be imposed' if that has the approval of both sides of the House.

Mr. Hattersley: Clause 3(5) was inserted as; a result of discussion in Committee, very largely as a result of a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), who expressed

the fear that the Government might use their powers under the Bill to impose consecutive standstills on the same group of workers—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to hear the hon. Member.

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar expressed the fear that the Government might use their powers under the Bill to impose a standstill on the same group of workers on two distinot occasions. My hon. Friend described it as a possible policy of cat and mouse. Whilst my hon. Friend was good enough to accept my right hon. Friend's assurance that she would never operate the policy in this way, he went on to say that if that was the case why should we not accept his Amendment which did not simply rely on the goodwill


and good intentions of the Government, but specified within the Bill that consecutive Orders could not be applied to the same groups.
I fear that in a fit of uncharacteristic generosity I accepted my hon. Friend's Amendment entirely, only to find, to my astonishment, that it was slightly defective in two or three minor technical aspects—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot address the House against the background of a number of sedentary debates.

Mr. Hattersley: The technical aspects are those which apply to Section 14 in that the Amendment that we accepted, which becomes Clause 3(5), refers to particular awards and settlements. Yet under Section 14 of the 1966 Act, which deals with the notification of awards and settlements and the 30 days' standstill, the Government might wish reasonably to apply that not to individual awards and settlements, but to categories of awards and settlements. Therefore, we propose these three minor Amendments in order that the Government may, should they so wish, apply this policy to groups rather than to individuals, and we limit the Amendments to the actual operation of standstills rather than to the awards.
The House will note that the intention of the Amendment accepted in Committee, that one group of people could not be affected during the same agreement by consecutive standstills, is in all ways preserved. We simply offer these three Amendments as tidying Amendments which we hope that the House will accept.

Mr. Emery: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary one direct question relating to Amendment No. 32. The effect of this Amendment is to leave out the words
in respect of which the said Order or direction was made …
Can we take this as indicative that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get rid of directions of all forms in the Bill? If that is so, we welcome it.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman can only take it as indicative of my desire to meet the wishes of the Committee and

to fulfil my promise to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar. It is indicative of no more than that.

Mr. R. Carr: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the consideration which he has given to the point raised in Committee. We cannot pretend that we are happy with the Clause, even with the Amendment, but we welcome the fact that the Amendment inclusion makes the Clause more acceptable, or perhaps less unacceptable is more correct, than it would be without it, and I therefore express our gratitude to the hon. Gentleman.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the Prices and Incomes Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr Hatetrsley.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 32. in page 3, line 8, leave out from 'settlement' to 'shall' in line 9.

No. 33, in page 3, line 14, leave out from ' further ' to ' in ' and insert ' standstill shall be imposed '.—[Mr. Hattersley.]

Clause 4

POWER TO REQUIRE REDUCTION OF PRICES OR CHARGES

Mr. Emery: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 3, line 16, leave out ' or 2(3)'.
This is probably the shortest Amendment on the Notice Paper, but as in my last speech I talked about things in the Bill being incomprehensible, the use of two figures and two brackets needs a certain amount of explanation.
Basically, what we are seeking to do is to prevent a standing reference being made to the Prices and Incomes Board in respect of price reductions. This is the first Amendment to be tabled on Report to deal with price reductions, and it must be realised that by the Bill the Government are introducing a new concept into their policy. They are taking powers to require reductions in


prices or charges. We believe that this is neither right nor beneficial. We consider that one or two things must be limited, but by the Amendment we are seeking to ensure that the powers given in the 1966 Act to allow a running or continuous review to be ordered do not apply to price reductions.
If that power is allowed to remain, any firm, or manufacturing company, or retailer, or organisation selling anything, or charging any price for services or goods will be in a perpetual quandary about the prices which may be charged, or which will be permitted to be charged, if a reference has been made, or could be made, or is being considered.
The power to order the Board to keep specified cases under continuous review has been used. This power is contained in Section 3(2) of the 1966 Act, but as usual the words are pretty imprecise, and one does not quite realise what powers are contained therein.
Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act says:
The Minister or Ministers referring any question to the Board under this section may at any time by a further reference to the Board vary or withdraw that question.
That power has been interpreted to allow the Board to have referred to it under the continuous review procedure the pay of the Armed Forces and the remuneration of university teachers.
These references are to cases in which the power has already been used by the Government, and this power would be reflected in the Clause dealing with a reduction in prices. How can the Government suggest that a pricing review of a firm or, more likely, an industry, should be carried out by any body? Is it right that the price structure of any company should be kept under perpetual review? Does not this conjure up the concept of a company's having to operate under a permanent punitive threat?
I used that description yesterday, and the Under-Secretary did not like it. It is a punitive threat. The Government can take action to order a company to reduce its prices. It has been said that such a price reduction could so affect the company to make it go out of business. The Government are now taking power permanently and continuously to keep under review—by reference to the Board

—the exact price structure under which any company or industry may operate.
It is clear that if this is to be brought about the membership of the Board will have to be greatly increased. Any continuous or running review—especially in regard to prices—will greatly extend the work and operation of the Board. Two specific cases have recently been affected —the pay of the Armed Forces and of teachers. This subsection gives the Board power to keep any question under continuous review. That is why we move the Amendment.
In relation to Section 3(2) of the 1966 Act, the London Gazette, in November, 1967—and this is indicative of the comprehensive way in which the Government are using the powers—said that the Government had indicated to the Board that it
shall from time to time, as the Board thinks fit, report to the Minister or Ministers giving any instruction under this Section on the matters to which the instruction relates; and the Secretary of State, or the Secretary of State and any other Minister acting jointly, may at any time require the Board to make …a report on those matters, or on any question relating to them.
That is the second major argument for deleting this provision. It is quite wrong to delegate executive powers to a completely independent body so that it can standardise a pricing policy for industry. I want to know from the Government the criteria on which they base the selection of cases to be kept under continuous review. Are the selected cases to be the subject of a particular type of restraint? Are contentious or vulnerable cases to be chosen, or is it to be a matter of victimisation in the use of these powers? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman opposite did not like my use of the word "victimisation". The sort of victimisation we are concerned with is, for example, an individual who receives an extra £150 a year after tax having his salary at least investigated. Suggestions that that would never be done by the Government have been disproved by the action which has been taken this week.
What are to be the criteria for a running reference? Is the Board to be used as a makeshift or a substitute for regular price review machinery? This is perhaps going a little far—

Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing the Clause, we are descussing the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to the Clause.

Mr. Emery: I realise this, Mr. Speaker, only too well. If the Government can tell me what are the criteria and what are their reasons for wishing to keep the powers, the Amendment may not be necessary. We have not been told by the Government what are the criteria. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary in what manner he wishes to operate this power, and on what criteria—

Mr. Speaker: It is the power under Section 2(3) of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966, only that power, not the rest.

Mr. Emery: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and it has been under that power that the permanent review has been used. I agree with you completely, Mr. Speaker, that on reading those words one is not conscious that that is the power that is being used, and this is why we wish to have it deleted. If there is some other way by which the power to keep the running review can be deleted perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will inform me so that we can in another place continue the Amendment. I am informed that this Amendment will do exactly what we want it to do. It would be quite wrong for the Government to have power to make the type of references that they have made on wages and salaries in relation to a reduction of prices. It is this part of the Clause which is so relevant. If there can be a running review on a matter of price reduction—

Mr. Speaker: May I assist the hon. Gentleman? The hon. Gentleman wishes to cut out Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act, which reads:
The Minister or Ministers referring any question to the Board under this Section may at any time by a further reference to the Board vary or withdraw that question.
This is what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to cut out by his Amendment.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I think it ought to be put on the record that we are not accustomed to having someone in the Chair who follows in such detail the arguments which are being put.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) can look after himself.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Emery: May I, then, turn to the review of power which we are also allowing under this, referring to the alteration after the reference to the Board. It has been under the further reference procedure that the Government have been able, if necessary, to alter any original reference. This is not what we want. We believe—it was helpful of you, Mr. Speaker, to remind me—that it is up to the Government to make it clear in their original reference how the Board should operate. Therefore, the Government should not be able to vary price reductions. As a company moves from one specific product, it may wish to move the unit costs which are unprofitable on that line to another. That might have to be referred, leading to a continuous reference. The Government should make up their minds at the start.
Therefore, as regards the running review and the alterations, there is no need for these price reduction powers. We disagree with the whole Clause, but we think that it would be fairer to industry with the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: The running review has nothing to do with the matter under discussion.

Mr. Harold Walker: I became convinced towards the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) that he was confusing Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act with Section 3(2), which deals with standing references to the Board. As you said, Mr. Speaker, Section 2(3) gives the Minister power to vary or revoke a reference to the Board. Nothing in it deals with standing references. Nor could Clause 4 be conceived as giving the Minister any power to make further standing references. I say firmly, clearly and categorically that there is nothing in Clause 4 which would permit such a standing reference.
The effect of this Amendment would be to provide that, if a varying reference, that is, the one referred to in Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act, asked the Board to consider the scope for price reductions there could not be added to it a direction or under the Clause to make recommendations which could be given binding force by an Order under the Clause. However, this would not prevent my right hon. Friend from making a subsequent


new reference which would have the same effect. Nothing in the Amendment would prevent my right hon. Friend from exercising the powers conferred by Section 2(1) of the 1966 Act to withdraw an existing reference, reframe it and re-submit it.
It is likely that if it were necessary for us to make a new reference containing the principles embodied in Clause 4, that is, to consider whether the Board should quantify possible reductions in price, with a view to my right hon. Friend subsequently making an Order, this is the procedure which would be adopted, rather than the powers which the Amendment seeks to delete, the powers to make a varying or revoking Order.

Mr. Ridley: In that event, would the hon. Gentleman explain why Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act need be in the Bill?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my remarks. I assure him that I will make the position abundantly clear.
I explained that if circumstances arose and if we thought it necessary, we might desire for there to be a broadening of a reference to the Board. Rather than withdraw the existing reference, we could use the powers under that Section and re-frame the reference. Perhaps new circumstances arose or new facts came before the Government which would result in the Government wanting to vary a reference before the Board. It is for this admittedly unlikely situation that we wish to retain, at the beginning of the Clause, Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act. That is why the Clause begins with the words:
Where under section 2(1) or 2(3) of the Prices and Incomes Act any question is referred to the "—
Board—
…the Minister … may include in the reference a direction to the Board …
It is to maintain conformity that we wish to retain this provision.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would the hon. Gentleman give an example, even a hypothetical one, of how this provision would be used? This is an extremely intricate matter and we want to get it clear. I confess that I am having difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Walker: The phraseology used in the Clause is that used throughout the legislation. The same words appear in the previous Acts and it is to ensure consistency that we are including the words in the Bill. Circumstances could arise when this provision would be needed in relation to a reference to the Board.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would the hon. Gentleman give an example?

Mr. Walker: The Board might be considering boots and shoes, where there was not contained in the reference a direction which my right hon. Friend cold give as a result of the 1966 provision being in the Clause. These powers are now contained in the Clause. We may, on the basis of information received after a reference had been made, require scope for a quantified price reduction to occur. There is, therefore, a prima facie case for saying that this power should be in the Clause. The power contained in it would enable my right hon. Friend to vary a reference to the Board to include consideration of the quantified scope for a price reduction, and the Board could take the matter into account if there was such scope, and it could then be embodied in its subsequent report. I trust that that is clear.

Mr. Burden: Yes, as clear as mud.

Mr. Walker: I have done my best to make the position clear. I trust that I have explained why the Amendment is unacceptable to the Government.

Mr. R. Carr: I have done my best to follow the Under-Secretary's reply. Perhaps we are getting a little tired and perhaps that is why it is not so easy for us to take in these intricate matters. One of our troubles with the Bill is that it is meant to apply to ordinary people throughout the country. Even hon. Members—with the exception of you, Mr. Speaker—find it difficult to understand what the Bill is and is not saying.
We feared that the inclusion of Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act in the Clause would give the Government ways and means of imposing the continuous review procedure on the examination of prices in relation to the power to reduce prices. If that had been so we would have regarded it as extremely damaging. If we have misunderstood that I shall be very glad to


be told so, but, having heard the Under-Secretary's reply, I am not even now quite clear. Can he say that the inclusion of Section 2(3) in this Clause will not be used by the Government to impose a continuous review procedure in relation to powers to reduce prices? If we could be sure about that we might feel more at rest than we do at the moment.

Mr. John Peyton: Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil) rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must warn hon. Members that the Chair understands the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I do not think I required that warning, because I was about to thank the Undersecretary for the clarity with which he explained that Section 3(4) of the 1966 Act was more vicious than Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act.
That being the case, the point with which we are here concerned is I believe comparatively trivial. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the subsection with the following subsection is, as he pointed out in polite language, far more vicious and offensive than the one with which we are here concerned. I do not understand from the Under-Secretary's answer why that is necessary.
The hon. Gentleman explained in the most crystal clear terms which we expect of some Ministers and which he was good enough to provide, that the Minister had all the powers she wanted under Section 2(1). Why have these powers under Section 2(3)? I do not understand this at all. I see no objection whatever to this Government withdrawing anything they have done. So far as I am concerned they are entirely welcome to do so. The withdrawal of any reference at any time, and almost any action they have ever taken, would be totally acceptable.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an interesting statement, but it has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: I am much obliged, but I think that I have been following precedent in the debate. I want only to query the word "vary". Why when the Under-Secretary explained so clearly that it is not necessary because the Minister

can do all she wants to do under Section 2(1), should she take these powers to vary it? I do not think the Government understand the nuisance they can cause to many people by such constant variations. It is very much to be preferred that they should withdraw the whole reference, be seen to do so publicly and to go as near as ever they do to making an apology rather than to put in little variations here and there to amend their previous meaning.
I want to hear the Under-Secretary justify this power, I believe that, line by line, word by word, this Bill needs to be justified in detail, because I regard its general purpose as tyrannical. I dare say that Ministers get tired of these arguments, but if they produce these abominations in statutory form they must explain every single word and justify it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is only one single word to be justified at the moment.

Mr. Peyton: I think, Sir, if I may say so, that you are rather hot in pursuit tonight. I am after that word, because we have had a clear explanation from the Under-Secretary that it is not necessary and that the whole thing can be done under Section 2(1). Why does he insist that Section 2(3) is necessary?

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Biffen: I hope that I understand the Amendment and will be able to keep in order, although I realise that that is a rather heroic premise on which to proceed when dealing with this kind of legislation.
As I understand, there is a distinction between keeping something under continuous review and allowing a Minister to vary a reference. As the Under-Secretary reasonably pointed out, the continuous review provision arises from Section 3(2) of the 1966 Act. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had in mind, when he was thinking in those terms, the continuous review which the Board now conducts, for example, of Service pay, or, I think I am right in saying, of the pay of certain academic professions.
What we are concerned with here, and I believe rightly and deliberately concerned with, is not that the Board may have powers of a continuous review which


it itself will operate, but that a reference to the Board made by the Government may, in the light of subsequent information, be varied; that, the reference once having been made, the Government will then take a second thought and say that they wish the reference to be varied in respect of price reductions. This is what the Amendment is about. The Under-Secretary nods; so he and I are in agreement, and we both seem to be in order.
I take the argument one stage further. The varying of the reference, so the Under-Secretary thinks, might be as a result of quantified information. I think these were his words—that, having once made a reference to the Board in relation to a suggested price reduction, further information might become available which would encourage the Government to wish to vary that reference. We are invited to believe that this will be based upon a sound, cool, detached, non-political, economic assessment of the evidence which is subsequently available. We cannot believe this. It strains our credulity.
We think of a company whose pricing policy has been referred under the legislation now proposed. We then think of the chairman of that company making some fairly stringent comments in his annual statement on the policy of the Government. He might even compare the Prime Minister to Lord North, without being disrespectful to Lord North. We might even find that there was some reference in the accounts, and is now by law required—I do not object to this— to the fact that the company's subscription to the Liberal Party, or to the Conservative Party, or to the Scottish Nationalist Party, had been increased.
It is just possible that, if these circumstances arose, the Government might wish to vary the reference which was already before the Board in relation to the pricing policies of that company. [An HON. MEMBER: "An unworthy suggestion."] I agree that this is an unworthy suggestion. I could be led to this conclusion only by what I am sure is the totally false Press reporting of the incident concerning Mr. Jocelyn Hambro. That is the only thing which could lead me to believe that such thoughts ever occurred to the Govern-

ment; otherwise, I would be entirely convinced by the Under-Secretary's argument.
Until the Under-Secretary can convince this side of the House—and, I suspect, even some hon. Members opposite—that the references to the Board are entirely detached, unconnected in any sense with political motivation, we are bound to be suspicious of any power which enables the Government to take second thoughts once a reference has already been made to the Board, particularly in terms of price reductions, where the Government might even enjoy the publicity and the inference that they are conducting a war against certain selected industrial companies, even if it were part of the process of maintaining some sort of spurious cohesion within their own ranks.
Those are the thoughts behind the Amendment. It is a serious Amendment which requires a much more detailed and convincing answer than the Undersecretary has so far presented to the House.

Sir John Foster: Under Section 2 of the 1966 Act, two types of reference are allowed. There is the original reference, and then under subsection (3) there is power to vary the reference by adding to or varying the question. The Amendment would exclude the reference to Section 2(3) from Clause 4 of the present Bill. We propose that exclusion because, if a question is referred to the Board and there is no reference in it to the reduction of prices, it is very unwise that the Government should have power, as they would have under Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act, to vary the question by including a reference to reduction of prices.
There is a practical reason for not allowing the Government to have that power. A question is referred to the Board—about boots and shoes, for example—and in the original question there is no hint of reduction of prices. The Board makes inquiry. It usually does so by appointing a sub-committee, which then meets the manufacturer, goes through the books, and asks questions. It would be most unwise if, in the middle of that, the Minister could vary the question by adding a reference to the reduction of prices.
The scope of the original question to the Board deals with a possible increase in prices. In our view, if the Minister wants to use Clause 4 to put a question about the reduction of prices, he should do so in the original submission to the Board and not at a later stage. When I say "a later stage", I mean at any stage, for Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act would allow it to be done at any stage. After months of inquiry, the Minister could suddenly add a question to the Board asking it to look into the possibility of reduction of prices as well. This would be unfair. It would put an extra burden on the industry, a burden which it should not be asked to bear, when the original question excluded any reference to price reduction.

Mr. Ridley: When the Under-Secretary first answered this debate, I thought that he took a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but my present thought is that we have unearthed a really serious matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) pointed out where the trail lay, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir J. Foster) has chased the quarry out into the open.
The Government have two separate powers to make references. One is power to make a reference to investigate whether a price should be allowed to rise. The other is power under Clause 4 to investigate whether a price should be ordered to go down. It is a peculiar feature of this legislation that the Prices and Incomes Board is not allowed to investigate of its own volition whether a price should be reduced; it can be done only if the Government refer the question specifically to it.
If the first type of reference, that dealing with a price increase, is used to elicit otherwise confidential information, it enables the second type of reference to be made. No Government can know the facts and figures behind a price until they can examine the confidential books. Therefore, the technique is beginning to emerge quite clearly. An application for a price increase will be automatically referred to the Board, which will have access to the company's books. It will be able to look at the profits and margins and make a few spurious and ill-formed judgments without having any idea about how commerce operates, about investments and tax liabilities and all sorts of complications to

do with liquidity, and so on. It will be able to say that there is a margin of 30 per cent., or whatever it may be, on basic factory costs, and will tell the Government, "Go ahead on boots and shoes".
Under the offending Section 2(3) of the 1966 Act the Government can vary an order. It can tell the Board, "Do not only look into whether there should be a price increase, but whether you can force it down. This is a most obnoxious power to give a Government. If they want to take a power to reduce prices —and we on this side of the House are totally against that—let them make their reference in the first place. Let them say, "We think that Mallory Batteries or X, Y and Z are charging too much. Investigate and see if you can reduce their prices". To use the back door, to say that they will have a second swipe at a company goes beyond the bounds of what is tolerable.
The whole legislation is ridiculous. To make it into a sort of Star Chamber system as well, with a built in system of heads you lose and tails I win is abominable.
I hope that the Under-Secretary, who answered the Amendment with the greatest candour but released this fox from its earth, will have the grace to say that he does not need this power. He admitted earlier that he could think of no conceivable occasion when it would have to be used. He was unable to quote a convincing example. Therefore, the honourable thing is to accept the Amendment, which will at least make sure that the original reference is confined to the purpose for which it was made, and will not give the Government the power to change references in midstream. I hope very much that he will respond to this invitation.

Mr. David Howell: It has taken the characteristic lucidity of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) to cast some light on the impenetrable obscurity of the question.
I should like to take up two points, the first of which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). First, in a way the power is typical of a theme to which we have returned, and shall be returning, again and again in the


Bill—the tendency of the Government to wish to change the rules in the middle of a negotiation or exchange of views between them and the citizen.
This is a typical example, giving the Minister opportunity to vary—and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was very right to emphasise the word "vary"—the conditions under which the citizen, the firm or manager are being judged in this case, and judged is the word. It is objectionable, first, because it is changing the rules, and without any indication of the criteria by what the change should be made.
We do not know by what criteria the variation should be established, on what basis a variation will be allowed. Will it be simply prompted by the discovery of information about the company's pricing policy, the whim and mood of the Minister concerned, or occur because Sunday falls on a different day of the month? The variation is totally arbitrary, and criteria are totally unestablished.
This is one example of changing rules —changing the very game—in the midst of a confrontation between the State and an individual, all too familiar not merely in the Bill but the whole range of legislation being thrust down our throats by the Government.
10.45 p.m.
Secondly, by varying the Order from possibly a demand that a price should be held to a demand that there should be a price reduction, the Minister may have a paralysing effect on a company's pricing policy. A modern company or corporation may have a vast mix of products and prices which it may want to vary for all kinds of internal reasons—production reasons, work process reasons, and so on—from week to week or from month to month.
If, under this power, the Minister is empowered to vary the Order and to demand that a standstill on a price increase should become a price reduction, this raises another theme to which we shall return, and that is that this power, like the others, is anti-innovation. It places on firms strictures, rules and disciplines which make it harder for a lively management to introduce new processes, price patterns and wage structures and create the kind of investment and high

productivity about which the First Secretary talks so often.
This is typical of the Government's habit of changing the rules in the middle, and it is another additive to the theme of anti-innovation to which the Government are so dedicated.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. I thought that you, Mr. Speaker, were about to put the Question without our having had a reply from the Minister.

Mr. Harold Walker: By leave of the House, may I briefly reply—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need leave.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said that we were taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. May I say that he is making a mountain out of a molehill.
There is nothing original in referring in the opening line of the Clause to the provisions of Sections 2(1) and 2(3) of the 1966 Act. In order to maintain uniformity and consistency in the legislation, we have used the same provisions again. May I point out to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that I referred to a quantified price reduction where the Board might consider there was scope for this. Perhaps a better example would be to choose a reference to the Board covering a range of manufactured consumer goods, such as breakfast foods, to which we might decide subsequently to add something which had been omitted, like porage. We would require the power to vary for that reason.
I hoped that I made it clear that we would not normally seek to use this power, but we needed to retain it because circumstances might arise—[Interruption.] I find it difficult to reply to the debate against the comments of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). The power to vary would be rarely used. We would seek, as has been requested, to frame the reference so as to contain any directions which may be required.
The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) and the hon. Member for Oswestry stressed that it was unwise to give the Government power to


vary, imputing to us some sinister motive. But, in any case, the result they seek would not be achieved by the Amendment. I repeat that the Government would still be left with the powers contained in Section 2 of the 1966 Act to withdraw a reference, reframe it and re-submit it to the Board. But I assure hon. Members that there is nothing sinister or impure in our motive, which is simply to maintain uniformity and consistency with the words used throughout this legislation.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: But surely the hon. Gentleman will admit that, without these new powers, it would be much more difficult for the Government. It is the job of the Opposition, when they fear possible consequences, to make a thing more difficult for the Government to do. This Amendment would make it more difficult for the Government to be sinister if they wished.

Mr. Walker: I cannot be making myself clear. The hon. Gentleman still talks

about new powers. There are no new powers contained in the references to Section 2 of the 1966 Act. This form of words has been used throughout this legislation. What is new is Clause 4 and its provisions, and that is a different matter. But I understand the reactions of hon. Members opposite. We are coming to that part of the Bill dealing with price reductions.

I assure the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) again that there are no new powers in Clause 4 which would enable us to make a continuous standing reference on anything to the Board. I say that firmly and categorically. Clause 4 does not give us any such powers. I hope that I have now made it clear why the Government do not find the Amendment acceptable.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 291.

Division No. 246.]
AYES
[10.54 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Astor, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Crouch, David
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Awdry, Daniel
Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hastings, Stephen


Baker, w. H. K. (Banff)
Currie, G. B. H.
Hay, John


Balniel, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Batsford, Brian
Dance, James
Heseltine, Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Higgins, Terence L.


Bell, Ronald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hiley, Joseph


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hill, J. E. B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Biffen, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Holland, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Doughty, Charles
Hooson, Emlyn


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Drayson, G. B.
Hordern, Peter


Black, Sir Cyril
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hornby, Richard


Blaker, Peter
Eden, Sir John
Howell, David (Guildford)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshaiton)
Hunt, John


Body, Richard
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bossom, Sir Clive
Emery, Peter
Iremonger, T. L.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Errington, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Braine, Bernard
Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Brewis, John
Farr, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fisher, Nigel
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fortescue, Tim
Jopling, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Foster, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gibson-Watt, David
Kershaw Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kimball, Marcus


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kirk, Peter


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kitson, Timothy


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Channon, H. P. G.
Gower, Raymond
Lane, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Clark, Henry
Gresham Cooke, R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Clegg, Walter
Grieve, Percy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cooke, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gurden, Harold
Longden, Gilbert


Cordle, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lubbock, Eric


Corfield, F. V.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
MacArthur, Ian




Mackenzie, Alasdair, (Ross &amp;Crom'ty)
Peel, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Percival, Ian
Summers, Sir Spencer


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Peyton, John
Tapsell, Peter


McMaster, Stanley
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Maddan, Martin
Pounder, Rafton
Teeling, Sir William


Maginnis, John E.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Temple, John M.


Marten, Neil
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tilney, John


Maude, Angus
Prior, J. M. L.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Pym, Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mawby, Ray
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Vickers, Dame Joan


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Mills, Stratum (Belfast, N.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wall Patrick


Miscampbell, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walters, Dennis


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridsdale, Julian
Weatherill, Bernard


More, Jasper
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Webster, David


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mott-Radcliffe, Sir Charles
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Royle, Anthony
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Murton, Oscar
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Neave, Airey
Scott, Nicholas
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woodnutt, Mark


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sharples, Richard
Worsley, Marcus


Nott, John
Shaw Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wylie, N. R.


Onslow, Cranley
Silvester, Frederick
Younger, Hn. George


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)



Osborn, John (Hallam)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Speed, Keith
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Hector Monro.


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Stodart, Anthony





NOES


Abse, Leo
Cronin, John
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Albu, Austen
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gourlay, Harry


Allaun, Frank (Salford E.)
Dalyeil, Tam
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Alldritt Walter
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Allen, Scholefield
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Archer, Peter
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Griffiths, Eddie


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hamling, William


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Delargy, Hugh
Hannan, William


Barnes, Michael
Dell, Edmund
Harper, Joseph


Barnett, Joel
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bence, Cyril
Dewar, Donald
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dickens, James
Haseldine, Norman


Bidwell, Sydney
Dobson, Ray
Hattersley, Roy


Binns, John
Doig, Peter
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bishop, E. S.
Driberg, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.


Blackburn, F.
Dunn, James A.
Henig, Stanley


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunnett, Jack
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hilton, W. S.


Booth, Albert
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Horner, John


Boston, Terence
Eadie, Alex
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Edelman, Maurice
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Boyden, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ellis, John
Howie, W.


Brooks, Edwin
English, Michael
Hoy, James


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ennals, David
Huckfield, Leslie


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Ensor, David
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Faulds, Andrew
Hunter, Adam


Buchan, Norman
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Foley, Maurice
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Cant, R. B.
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carmichael, Neil
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)


Carter-Jonee, Lewis
Ford, Ben
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Forrester, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Coe, Denis
Fowler, Gerry
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Coleman, Donald
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Concannon, J. D.
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gardner, Tony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Crawshaw, Richard
Ginsburg, David
Judd, Frank




Kelley, Richard
Molloy, William
Ryan, John


Kenyon, Clifford
Moonman, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Kerr, Mrs. Ann (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Sheldon Robert


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Lawson, George
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Leadbitter, Ted
Moyle, Roland
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ledger, Ron
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Murray, Albert
Skeffington, Arthur


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Neal, Harold
Slater, Joseph


Lee, John (Raading)
Newens, Stan
Small, William


Lestor, Miss Joan
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Snow, Julian


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Norwood, Christopher
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Oakes, Gordon
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Lomas, Kenneth
Ogden, Eric
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Loughlin, Charles
O'Malley, Brian
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Luard, Evan
Oram, Albert E.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Orme, Stanley
Swingler, Stephen


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Oswald, Thomas
Taverne, Dick


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George




Thornton, Ernest


McBride, Neil
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Tinn, James


MacColl, James
Palmer, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


MacDermot, Niall
Park, Trevor
Varley, Eric G.


Macdonald, A. H.
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McGuire, Michael
Parkin, Bem (Paddington, N.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McKay, Mrs, Margaret
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wallace, George


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Pavitt, Laurence
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mackie, John
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Mackintosh, John P.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wellbeloved, James


Maclennan, Robert
Pentland, Norman
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Whitlock, William


MacPherson, Malcolm
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Probert, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Randall, Harry
William, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Manuel, Archie
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Marks, Kenneth
Richard, Ivor
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Marquand, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Maxwell, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilson William (Coventry, S.)


Mayhew, Christoper
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Winnick, David


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow,E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mendelson, J. J.
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Woof, Robert


Mikardo, Ian
Roebuck, Roy
Yates, Victor


Millan, Bruce
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)



Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rose, Paul
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. John McCann and


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

Clause 4

POWER TO REQUIRE REDUCTION OF PRICES OR CHARGES

Mr. John Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 3, line 24, after 'charges', insert:
and if the Board recommends that there should be a reduction in all or any of the prices or charges, the Board shall consider also whether there should be a reduction in the resale prices of the goods concerned, and if the Board thinks fit, include in the Board's report recommendations for the reductions of such prices'.

Mr. Speaker: With Amendment No. 28 I propose that we take Amendment No. 38, in page 3, line 24, after 'charges', insert:
'except that where there is no recommended retail selling price or charge the manufacturer's price or charge only shall be referred to the Board'.
and Amendment No. 39, in line 24, after 'charges', insert:
'except in so far that they shall apply only to retail margins of goods which are covered by resale price maintenance arrangements'.
I understand that the Opposition would prefer to vote on Amendment No. 38 rather than Amendment No. 28. That will be possible.

Mr. Page: This Clause again refers to the part of the Bill requiring the reduction of prices and charges. It gives the Minister power to require that, when the National Board for Prices and Incomes has a price or charge referred to it, it will be able include a recommendation in its report that the price might be reduced.
Amendment No. 28 is of an exploratory nature, because in Committee we had a number of divergent and semi-contradictory statements by members of the Government about how retail and resale prices would be treated under the Bill. The object of this Amendment, therefore, is to allow us to discuss on the Floor of the House, and hear from the Minister, what machinery she would use to influence or order the reduction of wholesale or retail prices.
The Under Secretary has said on a number of occasions that competition is

not enough to keep resale prices low. By "resale" I mean wholesale prices, dealers' prices and shop prices. The belief of many of my hon. Friends is that if members of the Government had recently had to earn their living in competitive industry and understand the pressures which compettiion produces to keep prices down they would not shrug off so easily the dramatic effect which competition can have on all prices, particularly retail prices, unless there is a monopoly position. If there is a monopoly position, or if an undertaking—which I think almost of necessity must be a manufacturer or an importer—has a dominating influence on a particular section of the market, that should be dealt with by other means. But in the ordinary way we feel that competition should be given a greater opportunity to act and react on prices. We believe that competition has a much greater effect than is produced by any statement or declaration by the Ministry or the Board.
The right hon. Lady and her junior Ministers have constantly said that they are determined to declare war on excessive prices and retail margins. We must, therefore, consider what they can do to achieve their objective. Under the Clause the power to require reductions in prices or charges can be used only after the Board has recommended that such reductions should be made.
The White Paper on Productivity Prices and Incomes Policy in 1968 and 1969, sets out the criteria to be used by the Board in recommending price reductions, and if the significance of these Amendments is to be appreciated it is essential to consider those criteria. I I should like the Minister to confirm that no Order for a price reduction can be made until such a reduction has been recommended by the Board.
Paragraph 18 of the White Paper says that reductions are required
(i) if output per employee is increasing faster than the rate of increase in wages and salaries which is consistent with the criteria for incomes, and there are no offsetting and unavoidable increases in non-labour costs per unit of output.
In the distributive trades it is not easy to work out the output per employee. It is not measurable in the way that it is


possible to measure the output of an employee in manufacturing industry. It may be possible to do it in large retailing organisations, but in an ordinary wholesale or retail business it is difficult to say that the sales potential, or the distribution potential, of an employee can increase by so much and therefore a price reduction is warranted. Except in exceptional circumstances, therefore, subparagraph (i) which I have quoted will not apply.
Then we take the second criterion, and this has a touch of sick humour about it, because it says:
if the costs of materials, fuel or services per unit of output are falling …
Well, it has not been the experience of businessmen recently that the cost of materials, fuel or services is falling. It is unnecessary to underline how great the increases in the cost of materials, fuel and services are likely to be following the recent Budget. Therefore, so far as the retail side of business is concerned, I do not think that the second criterion is likely to operate. The third criterion is:
if capital costs per unit of output are falling and there arc no offsetting and unavoidable increases in non-capital costs per unit of output;
and when we talk about unit of output it is unit of work completed. Again, it is likely in the wholesale business that capital costs per unit of work done are likely to fall? Rates are going up, services are going up, maintenance is going up, and I do not see that this is possible. Is one going to see the capital cost per unit of output falling in the ordinary shop? Again, I do not think we shall.
We come to the fourth criterion:
if profits are based on excessive market power.
This one, I would have thought, was the Government's best bet if the retailer is either a manufacturer or a direct importer. But it would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether he can enumerate where excessive market power is likely to be found in the retail end of the business.
We can imagine that Marks and Spencer, with a large range of branded goods which they manufacture themselves, or have manufactured for them,

could have excessive market power. But that would only refer to the actual goods they sell which are exclusively made for sale by them. If the similar goods are sold elsewhere, the ordinary market forces of competition will operate.
Therefore—and this is really the object of Amendment No. 28—we have examined the only reasons open to the Prices and Incomes Board for recommending a reduction in retail prices, and it would look as though these criteria are very seldom likely to be applicable.
If any retail shop puts on a very large margin of 300 or 400 per cent., but does not come under any of the four criteria because the large margin would not be based on excessive market power or any of the other criteria, I submit that it would not be possible for the Prices and Incomes Board to rule that a price reduction should be made.
If these contentions are right it is quite ridiculous for the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend to say that they are proposing to reduce retail prices. It is false. It is part of the sinister and dangerous window dressing which appears constantly in the Bill. We have too much sinister window dressing in the House. [Interruption.] It is the way in which the window is dressed, with black curtains, and a clip joint atmosphere—where one finds that something very different is offered inside from what one had been led to expect outside. This is a clip joint Government, and they produce a lot of clip joint legislation. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is a clip joint?"] I have been asked what a clip joint is. I remember the debates that took place on the question of clip joints. If I went into the question 1 could make a much more interesting speech than I am making now, but I should be out of order if I went into the question whether a man who goes into a night club and is given certain promises is cheated if those promises are not fulfilled. That is what a clip joint is.

Sir G. Nabarro: Refer them to the Board.

Mr. Page: I should like my hon. Friend to suggest that to the Minister and see what he says about it; the reference of a night club has not yet been tried, and it would be good fun.
In Committee on 11th June the Undersecretary said that
the question of the specific reduction required, or which may be required, on wholesale or retail price will generally be the subject of a separate reference to the Board, and it will be the Board which will make its recommendations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 11th June, 1968, c. 539.]
If the Board can find an exceptional case where a retail price reduction can be demanded, how will it be implemented, assuming that the organisation is not a group organisation? How will the Minister produce an Order for a reduction in the price of cigarettes, for example? Will he make an Order against every different retail and wholesale outlet? If so it will make a mockery of the system laid down in the Bill for making Orders for price reductions.
We want to hear that the Minister has virtually no powers for the reduction of retail prices. We take the opportunity, in Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, of expressing our confidence about the effect of competition where resale price maintenance has been abandoned at the instigation of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in the teeth of the strongest opposition from hon. Members opposite. If it were not for the abolition of resale price maintenance the policy would be in an even more ridiculous and sorry state than it now is.

Mr. Biffen: This series of Amendments is of real significance, particularly Amendment No. 38, on which, I understand, my hon. Friends intend to divide the House. One of the most significant aspects of the development of the Government's prices and incomes policy in recent months—with its added ambitions, particularly about prices—is the amount of work which is being loaded on the N.B.P.I.
Hon. Members who have always had a somewhat modest conception of the virtues of the Board, its staff, executives and whoever it contracts to carry out its tasks must of necessity have had that view reinforced by the additional work which the Board is now being expected to carry. Amendment No. 38 seeks to limit that work, since it says:
except that where there is no recommended retail selling price or charge the manufacturer's price or charge only shall be referred to the Board.

Of all the reports produced by the Board, the one on distributors' margins was perhaps the most superficial. It would be interesting to know how much was paid to the consultants who carried out that superficial job.

Sir G. Nabarro: Sir G. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Biffen: I will not give way. I wish to be brief, so that my hon. Friend will have ample time to make his own distinctive contribution to the discussion.
One is almost left with the impression that whatever the Jones family might experience at Fortnum and Mason, for the rest of mankind, shopping in the High Street means price-cut competition by Sainsbury's, the Co-op and other, less politically motivated, retailers. We should do our best to obtain at least the limitation on the Board's tasks proposed by the Amendment, since it strikes a blow for common sense in a world of increasing economic nonsense which flows from the Government's policy. On this basis, I commend the Amendment to the House.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: The Amendment is prompted by the completely unworkable nature of the Clause, which gives power to reduce manufacturers' prices. It applies solely to manufacturers' prices and it is not designed to apply to retail margins. Nor does the criteria apply to retail margins. In Committee, the Undersecretary made it clear that the Government were concerned with manufacturers' prices and that there was no power in the Clause to reduce retailers' margins. This shows the Government's complete lack of appreciation of the practicalities of trading. When a price is frozen, everything stays put and there is hardship across the board. But when a price is reduced, there must be a cut-back somewhere along the chain and somebody must take less.
Instead of getting the margin which they had before—which, whether it is adequate or inadequate they had agreed —as soon as there is a cut someone will take less. This may be all right if the raw materials are processed by one firm or one person, but that does not happen. Up to the point of sale the goods pass through many hands, from the import of the raw material to the processor, the


assembler, and so on. When there are 90 or 100 units, at whom is the Order aimed? To do anything of this sort one would have to go through the whole cost analysis, to look at each process, to do a complete costing exercise and eventually find where in the opinion of the Prices and Incomes Board the margin is excessive and a cut should be made.
The Clause is unworkable. The Amendments, in the first place, are of a probing nature. Secondly, they are designed to produce some semblance of fairness and sense where a resale price, or a recommended price, has been fixed. In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that there is no power under the Clause to look at a retail margin. I hope that he accepts that retailers' margins are effectively controlled by something about which we feel strongly—a competitive society and competition brought about by the Resale Prices Act. A Ministerial decree saying that a price will be cut can result only in gross unfairness.
What is to happen to goods in the pipeline? What about orders and supplies of components on hand? In the footwear trade, the motor trade and many others, to a large extent the manufacturer is an assembler of components which are made elsewhere. By cutting the price paid to the manufacturer, is the Minister to apply cuts right down the pipeline? Will they be applied in the motor trade back to the tyre manufacturer and to the maker of steering wheel assemblies? Where will he make the cuts?
The Clause shows, and the Amendments expose, the complete lack of any positive, constructive or knowledgeable thinking by the Government. It is included for one purpose only, as my hon. Friends have said: purely as window dressing, so that the Government can say, "We will freeze your wages, but, on the other hand, we will bring the prices down and stop all rises in price." It is impracticable nonsense, and I believe that the Under-Secretary knows it. I hope that if he cannot accept the Amendments literally, he will accept their spirit and give us a concession which will enable the Clause to be a little less objectionable.

Sir G. Nabarro: "Impracticable nonsense" was my hon. Friend's description of the Clause, and I heartily endorse what

he has said. I have recently had experience of the charges for batteries for hearing aids. I asked a supplementary question a couple of days ago, drawing the attention of the responsible Minister to the fact that I started chasing this hare nine months ago because my constituents and others alleged that the increases in prices of batteries for hearing aids were quite exorbitant.
I then received from the Minister of Technology a stalling reply to the effect that the matter would be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board and asking me to apply to the Chairman thereof. So I wrote one of my customary letters, starting "My dear Aubrey" and finishing "Yours ever":
Pray examine this exorbitant price increase. Pray tell me the reasons for the steep advances. Put your horde of clerks to work to justify these increases in prices.
Six months later a Report was published by the Minister which said that the price advances were exorbitant. I am still pressing the Minister to know what action will be taken. [Interruption]. If the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) wishes to intervene, I happily give way. I must say at once, however, that it is so nice to hear a Socialist intervening in these debates.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was merely about to ask the hon. Member whether "Dear Aubrey" did not write to "Dear Gerald".

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member has got it all wrong. "My dear Gerald" is the term. Aubrey characteristically writes me in that vein. We are old friends. We entered this place as long ago as 1950. We have a healthy regard for one another, but not for him in his present capacity. I referred to him as a bureaucratic jellyfish when he was appointed on 13th March, 1965, and I did not like it at all, but that does not detract in any way from the man's personal qualities, of course.
The point that I am endeavouring to make is that the whole of the bureaucratic process of reference of prices to the Prices and Incomes Board is a farce. Rarely, or never, is any price reduction achieved. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) had it exactly right: impracticable nonsense. It is never intended that


the Board should reduce any prices. It is merely an exercise to wave the flag before militant trade unionists and say, "No wage advances for organised labour, but look how we are striking at the roots of capitalism by denying them the market price for their products." That is all that Clause 4 amounts to.
We are moving Amendment No. 28 and voting on Amendment No. 38. [Laughter.] I do not know what has caused the mirth behind me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman will address the Chair.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is my characteristic habit to gyrate when talking.
Impracticable nonsense it all is. I want to take the argument further afield into areas not dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), in his splendid speech. He had no word to say of the nationalised industries. What is to happen about prices in the nationalised industries? Bisecting my constituency of Worcestershire, South are the Rivers Severn and Avon. There are many locks and they are habitually used by pleasure craft. [Laughter.] I am sorry if I have caused my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) some mirth. The River Severn is a matter of great importance to him, too. Many pleasure craft use these locks. The charges for using the locks have been increased recently by many hundreds percentum. When I make representations to the appropriate Minister and the appropriate nationalised board, I am told that it is justifiable for a nationalised board to increase its prices by many hundreds per cent. without reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, because there is a statutory responsibility on the nationalised board to pay its way, taking year with year.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Taking one year with another.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am delighted to have my hon. and learned Friend's intervention and support.
It is a very important waterway. Thousands of industrial workers from Birmingham, the Black Country, Coventry and elsewhere spend their holidays on it. They have to pay these exorbitant

lock charges which have been increased by hundreds percentum. Are these to be the subject of a direction for a price reduction by the Government under this Clause, or are nationalised industries to be allowed to opt out? Are they ultra vires the terms of the Clause?
I am delighted to see the Minister of Transport here. The right hon. Gentleman knows, as Ministerial parent in this matter, that lock charges are a very important matter to those operating pleasure craft on this waterway. That is only one minor example of the operations of these charges by nationalised industries. I will mention a much larger and more significant example. I take the National Coal Board. The Board is always in trouble. In this instance the producer of the coal is a nationalised board. The coal is sold at pithead, in the instance of domestic and house coal, to merchants. The merchants decide what their margin shall be.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Tell us something we do not know.

11.45 p.m.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Carlisle has intervened for the first time in our debates. I hope that he is voicing the opinions of the co-operative societies. He ought to be, for they are the largest distributors of house coal in Britain. Are they satisfied with the existing margins? Are they satisfied that their margins might be deemed excessive by the Prices and Incomes Board, or by a complainant anywhere buying coal from them and, therefore, subject to a reference under the Clause?
Is it intended that the Clause should apply to nationalised industries? We have had no answer yet. Would it apply to the National Coal Board, the electricity boards, the gas boards, the waterways and their lock charges, and the remainder right through the whole gamut of nationalised industry charges? We have had no answer from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hattersley: Lock charges have never been the subject of resale price maintenance, so it is hardly likely that I shall discuss them under this heading.

Sir G. Nabarro: But they ought to be. There would be a better deal if they were subject to resale price maintenance


instead of the authoritarian regimé of the right hon. Gentleman who decides what the charges shall be, impresses them upon reluctant users, and allows no appeal against exorbitant increases in the tariffs. The Under-Secretary sits for a metropolitan and urban industrial seat in Birmingham. He knows nothing of lush pastures in Worcestershire, of waterways, of pleasure craft, or of lock charges.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: To protect the Minister, I ought to say that there are more miles of canal in Birmingham than in any other city in the world.

Sir G. Nabarro: My hon. Friend has failed to distinguish between the user of canals in the City of Birmingham, which is almost entirely industrial, and the user of canals in rural Worcestershire, which is almost entirely for pleasure purposes. People taking pleasure craft through the locks in Worcestershire are at present aggrieved by the steep increase in the tariffs.
With those few words, I appeal to the Minister about the retail and distributive charges of nationalised industries. He must deal with the matter when he replies. [AN. HON. MEMBER: "Why?".] Because the Clause does not exclude nationalised industries, and our Amendment would deal with nationalised industries and their tariffs. I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are moving Amendment No. 28 and we are voting on Amendment No. 38, and it is important that the two be treated one with the other.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with the valid points I have put to him, and with the most apposite phrase coined by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West. The Clause is impractical nonsense. I heartily endorse what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Peyton: I am sure that the whole House admired and respected the coyness with which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) came, at the end of his speech, to mention the Amendments with which we are concerned. We must admire and respect his techniques.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) rendered a great service in the way in which he exposed the folly of the Clause, although it was not quite clear to me by what labyrinthine oratorical path he somehow ambled into a clip joint in the middle.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman), who made it quite clear that the Clause is sheer window dressing. It is put here at the behest of the right hon. Lady, presumably as one of the cards with which she attempts to trump the trick of her right hon. Friend the Chancellor. She is always saying that prices are coming down and he is always saying that they will go up. It would be interesting if the Opposition retired and allowed the Chancellor and the right hon. Lady to argue this out. We should be very interested to hear the conclusion. [Interruption.] It is noteworthy that tonight we also have a debate below the Gangway.
Last night the hearts of some hon. Gentlemen opposite were aflame with indignation against this wicked Bill, but today not one of them has been able to raise any enthusiasm. Instead, we have absolute silence from them—save for sedentary muttering. It contrasts very ill with the performance yesterday, when hon. Gentlemen opposite were burning with fervour to see the Bill in its proper place—right in the fire. Today they are silent; they are letting this lamentably bad and beastly legislation through unscathed. Presumably they have been brought to heel by the party Whip, and the Patronage Secretary can relax.
I hope that my interrupting myself in that way will be pardoned. I was provoked by the sedentary remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but we welcome their presence.
To return to the debate, I want to express my very warm agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who, as I do, always tries to be polite. Tonight, he fell over himself to achieve that end. Referring to the Prices and Incomes Board and our feelings towards it, he said that those of us who have a modest conception— [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) wish to interrupt?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: No. I am only trying to get clear whether the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) was or was not dealing with the nationalised industries.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman would do well to listen to the words of wisdom that fall from my hon. Friend's lips instead of talking to his neighbour. He can always improve his education by reading HANSARD tomorrow. He will benefit from it immensely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry referred to the modest conception of the virtues of the Board. My hon. Friend must be congratulated on his civility. I suspect that, like myself, he regards the Board as something of a nuisance and an excuse—[Interruption.] I do not want to go on calling attention to undesirable things, but the hon. Member for West Ham, North is constantly obtruding himsel—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will not interrupt and that the hon. Gentleman will come to the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: We are witnessing a parliamentary performance by the hon. Member for West Ham, North and his neighbour which is in strange contrast with that of last night—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: I shall be delighted to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be easier to do so if the constant buzz of conversation for which the hon. Member for West Ham, North is responsible were to be abated.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry, I see some merit in the second of these Amendments. I am slightly doubtful about the merits of the first and third Amendments. I accept the wisdom of the simple, straightforward argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South. Let us keep as far away from the Prices and Incomes Board as possible. [Interruption.] This is atrocious: legislation, and Ministers are content, apparently, to desert the Front Bench. I do not know whether you can advise us on what remedies we have, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will continue to speak to the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: I am endeavouring to do so. There is a concentrated effort below the Gangway to which I have drawn attention—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I respect the hon. Gentleman's wish for attention, but I hope that he will not dwell on this matter too much.

Mr. Peyton: I am much obliged for your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am even more obliged to the Undersecretary for his return to the Front Bench. I know that the Government are absolutely satisfied about the merits of this legislation, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that others are not and that it is offensive and anathema to many people.
We regard these references to the Board as being largely vain exercises done in the hope of making a thoroughly unrealistic policy practical. We also regard them as being flattering in the extreme to a Board which is not competent to carry out—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going much too wide of the Amendment, which is concerned with matters the subject of resale price maintenance.

Mr. Peyton: We regard the references to such a Board of resale prices as fatuous in the extreme. The complexity of such matters is well beyond the digestive capacity of the Board, and I believe that the Under-Secretary and his colleagues know full well that nothing will be achieved. The Clause is shown by the Amendment to be sheer window dressing of a dishonest kind.

12 m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I intervene because of the amusement shown by the Under-Secretary of State at the description of this provision as sinister window dressing. The Government know that, now that we have got rid of resale price maintenance, there is no need to have power to refer the retail trade to the Board because the keen competition which has to go on if the retail trade is to remain in existence is sufficient.


I took offence at the hon. Gentleman's amusement because recently we had an example of sinister window dressing. The Government referred paint, wallpaper and paint brushes to the Board. That was only done by the right hon. Lady because she wanted an excuse for the restraint the Government are putting on wages. But there is the keenest possible competition in the sale of paint and wallpaper. There is no village shop where these things are not on sale; every High Street has several shops competing in the sale of these goods.
I believe the right hon. Lady's reason was because, at the time, there were Press headlines about possible paint industry takeovers. It had nothing to do with retailing. The trade is already under strain because of the extra expenses, such as the S.E.T., which have been imposed by the Government. If, then, to give effect to a wrong decision on wages, the Government are to put the trade to this sort of extra expense and trouble, this move deserves to be called sinister. It is sinister window dressing. These things will never be referred to the Board on any great scale, because it would mean brining every retail shop in the trade before the Board which would be impractical.
Why do the Government want to cheat the country in this way? If they feel there has to be a certain level of wages, let them produce arguments for it; if they feel that certain manufacturers have taken advantage of a monopoly market to charge too high prices, let them deal with that. But trying to curry general favour so as to cover up the weaknesses in both these arguments by suggesting that people are being cheated by the retail trade, when keen competition makes that virtually impossible, is not doing right by the nation.
This is why it is sinister window dressing and impractical nonsense. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at the Amendment again and tell us that the Government will deal properly with this matter at the right level and that he will not drag red herrings across the path. I ask him to make a clean breast of it and confess that the Government indulged in a manoeuvre which has served its purpose while they tried to win general approval in attempting to make the prices

and incomes policy palatable. I hope that he will admit that they are being unfair to the retail trade, that this provision is impractical, and that they will withdraw it.

Mr. Speed: I agree with those of my hon. Friends who have said that this provision is sinister and window dressing, but in discussing Amendment No. 38, which is the relevant Amendment, we have to refer to paragraph 25 of the White Paper, which says:
The criteria and considerations set out above are intended to be applied by all concerned, including wholesalers and retailers, in the determination of prices for the sale of goods, and charges for the performance of services … 
When this general matter was debated in Committee, the Under-Secretary made great play with the fourth criterion— profits based on excessive market power. I would have thought that this criterion was weakest in retail marketing. The only place where a shop would have excessive market power would be in a remote village where it was the village shop-cum-post office-cum-everything else. If and when the village was cut off by bad weather, I suppose that it could be argued that the village shop had excessive market power because customers could not go anywhere else to do their essential shopping.
This would also be so on vast housing estates, council or otherwise, where there were co-operatives or large multiple grocers, and where it might be argued that the large multiple grocers or the cooperatives had excessive market power at certain times. But, to be realistic, it could not be argued that there was excessive market power in the average High Street, in the average town, or in the average village.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary agreed that it was extremely difficult to have any form of criteria for margins. If I am correct, and I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong, we have to go back to the 1966 Act. This is one of the problems of this legislation. Discussing this subject in the Chamber we have to tackle innumerable Acts, but let us think of the effect on shopkeepers and others who will have to have the 1966 Act, the 1967 Act, presumably eventually the 1968 Act, plus the White Paper, plus the Minister's Statement of Intent and,


presumably, a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee, because so much is left to the discretion of the Government that we will finish up with a small library in every shop in the country for shopkeepers to be able to understand this legislation.
Section 7(4) of the 1966 Act says:
An order under subsection (1) above may frame a description of prices or charges "—
and I assume that Clause 4 would have the same application—
to which this section applies in any way, and in particular in framing a description of prices of goods of a specified class—

(a) may make distinctions by reference to the undertakings or persons selling the goods,
(b) may make distinctions by reference to the terms and conditions on which the goods are sold …".


I interpret that as to mean in theory that any individual shop or person selling goods from a market stall, or anywhere else, could be specified.
Having established that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to set criteria for retail margins, and knowing the very wide variations in retail margins, if the Prices and Incomes Board is to make any sense of this provision, and I doubt whether it will, it is essential that we try, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said, to lighten the load wherever possible. The only way in which we could lighten the load would be by exempting the goods outlined in Amendment No. 38, in other words, goods with no recommended selling prices, when purely the manufacturer's price would be referred to the Board.
I have my suspicions about how the Board could cope with this in present circumstances. We heard my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire. South (Sir G. Nabarro) speaking of his experience in trying to get the price of batteries referred to the Board and how he waited for many months. I am surprised that, with his customary ingenuity and enterprise, instead of writing futile letters to futile bodies, he did not set up his own factory to manufacture batteries at a cut price. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will ensure that an industrial development certificate is forthcoming if my hon. Friend decides to manufacture batteries in my constituency.
While I am referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South may I say that I am distressed, as a native of the Vale of Evesham, to hear that the Lower Avon Navigation Trust has been nationalised.
I know of a firm, which I will not name, one of whose products was referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, because the firm had increased the price. Because it manufactured a range of products and because Purchase Tax and other things went up, and the firm wished to stabilise the prices of certain products and had to carry a margin somewhere, it pushed up one price by a reasonable amount, to cover the whole range.
This was referred to the Prices and Incomes Board by a shopkeeper or somebody and the firm had a letter from the Board querying the price. The sales manager, who considered it his business to fix the price over the whole retail pattern, wrote to the Board in reply. Nothing more was heard for two months and then came a further letter asking for detailed information on costings and the internal financial set-up of the company.
The sales manager got the firm's internal cost accountant to write a letter to the Board, full of meaningless figures to justify the rise in price. I saw the letter and it meant nothing to me, would have meant nothing to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and meant nothing to the sales manager who authorised it. He got a reply, in the fullness of time, that the matter was closed.
If this is happening now, and we are talking of dealing with price reductions, I must echo the fear of many of my hon. Friends that this really is window dressing—

Sir G. Nabarro: A co-op?

Mr. Speed: It was not a co-operative society, although—

Sir G. Nabarro: Does my hon. Friend realise that there are 18 Labour and Cooperative Members in the Government party; that these Amendments deal with retail distribution margins and that not a single Co-operative voice has been heard this evening? Dereliction of duty on the part of the co-ops.

Mr. Speed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because there is an important point of substance here.
We are dealing with retail margins. The Co-ops are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstrings, and have a modern, 20th century marketing policy. No doubt, hon. Members will have seen the cheerful jingles on television aimed at selling Co-op tea, and the new Co-op symbol. Presumably the Co-op fixes margins where there are no recommended retail prices, as part of its policy. Provided that it does not enjoy a monopoly position, I have no objection to that. More power to its elbow.
The Prices and Incomes Board has a somewhat dubious record with regard to the specific problems which are sent to it. If it is being asked to carry a much greater workload—and it can be very considerable under Section 4(7) of the 1966 Act—the Government are placing a lot of faith in a piece of window dressing. It will add further to the discredit in which the policies of all parties are held by the public when they are led to believe certain things and they are not delivered, in the end.
12.15 a.m.
It is no good the right hon. Lady or anybody else expecting Clause 4, particularly with reference to profit margins and the prices of goods in shops, to bring about fantastic price reductions when we all know—and the Chancellor was honest enough to say so—that there are staggering rises in prices at the moment. Therefore, I do not believe that this policy will work because of the extreme difficulty of establishing any criteria on margins, of the wide range of margins within retail shops and the fact that more goods are no longer subject to resale price maintenance.
The Under-Secretary, in Committee, was good enough to say that he welcomed increased competition leading not only to the stabilising but to the reduction of prices of goods like whisky, on the one hand, and considerable numbers of food items, on the other. Certain things, like lard and sugar, are sold at or below cost as loss leaders. The grocery trade is now working on a profit margin of between 12 and 15 per cent. gross. Most of its products are not sold subject to any form of resale price maintenance. I believe that we should give these people

some form of stability, but we should also seek to stop the National Board for Prices and Incomes making an even bigger fool of itself. I hope therefore that hon. Members will support the Amendment.

Mr. Hattersley: What seems now a long time ago, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) drew the attention of the House to the powers which the Government seek under Clause 4 and the criteria by which those powers must be operated. I must refer the House to what the hon. Gentleman said to make a crucial addition to his analysis of the position. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that Section 4(1) of the parent Act establishes the principle that consideration must be given by the Board, and Section 4(2) of the parent Act explains what criteria the Board must use when making an examination of a reference by the Government.
That criteria is the White Paper which outlines the Government's prices and incomes policy. Certainly, Section 4(2) of the parent Act does not require the Board to limit its consideration to any one part of that White Paper. If the hon. Member for Harrow, West looks at paragraph 7 of the White Paper presently forming a Schedule to the Act, he will see that that makes a general reference to the need to reduce prices where practicable and to prevent unjustifiable price increases. Any Prices and Incomes Board operating criteria which include that paragraph would have the widest powers to examine every unjustifiable price increase and to reduce prices where practicable.
It is against that criteria that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) should and must judge the Government's prices policy. It is no good the hon. Gentleman, who I sincerely expect to make serious speeches, talking as if there is some conflict between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary in terms of the kind of prices policy which each wants to mount. I have said on many occasions that the Chancellor is absolutely right to say that, as a result of devaluation and other direct Government measures, prices will rise during the next year. That is an established fact, and that is my right hon. Friend's statement.
I have also said that the present Chancellor is the first Chancellor to even assay an analysis of how much his budgetary measures will contribute to rising prices. There is no dispute about that fact between my right hon. Friend the First Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. They both say that the background of generally rising prices is not a reason why we should not prevent unnecessary price increases. It is a reason why we should prevent them with greater determination than was otherwise the case.

Mr. Biffen: This is a point of real interest. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that last night the First Secretary, when seeking to defend the evolution of the prices and incomes policy, pointed out that every year since it had operated under this Government incomes had risen more than had prices. If that be the criteria of success, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that is the expected experience this year, or will it, as we are now being led to believe by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be exactly the opposite?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not agree that anyone has suggested that that is the criteria of success for the policy. I agree with his statement—if that was the statement he made—that since records were kept there has been only one year in which real incomes have not risen faster than prices, but what happens during the next year does not depend on a simple analysis of the increase in wages versus the increase in prices. In no small measure it depends on how ready industry is to negotiate wage increases of a new sort. As the Prime Minister said in the House three weeks ago, if industry on a large scale chooses to take advantage of the productivity criteria and negotiate wage increases according to that formula, the position can be very different indeed.
I turn, now, to the Amendments. As the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said several times, Amendment No. 28 has been moved, but the emphasis and interest is on Amendment No. 38. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) said that the object of Amendment No. 28 was to probe retail distribution and our attitude to costs in that sector of the economy.
I remind the House, and particularly the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, that Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 seek to exclude from the provisions of the Bill those areas of price which are subject neither to resale price maintenance nor to recommended prices. That being so, if the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South wants to include charges on British waterways, he must vote against these Amendments, for they would make it impossible for waterways charges, by which he sets great store, to be included within our purview since they have never been subject to either of those disciplines.
Amendment No. 38 establishes clearly and precisely the Opposition's belief that competition is enough, that if there is genuine competition one does not need intervention, that if there is competition that is all that is necessary. I said in Committee, and I say again tonight, that in many ways I wish that were so. That is the easy economic answer. That answers all our industrial questions before we need to ask them. If, somehow, the hidden hand of competition was so ruthless that firms which charged too much either went out of business, or were immediately faced with competition from new, thrusting entrepreneurs who were willing to work for rather less and establish new factories, all our price problems would be answered. But, as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) said, it is not like that.
The hon. Gentleman made a most telling point when he referred to the Mallory battery case and said, "Look at the firms' enormous profits. Look how well it is doing". What a pity that a thrusting entrepreneur—I am sure he does not mind the description—like the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South did not immediately come into the market and produce equally good batteries at a slightly lower price because he was prepared to take a smaller profit margin. No thrusting entrepreneur, determined to work on a basic margin of profit, determined to live very near the profitable margin and, therefore, compete with this company which tried to take an unwarrantable degree of profit, entered into the market in the Mallory battery case.

Sir G. Nabarro: Mallorys are the manufacturers of batteries. They are not entrepreneurs. Does not the hon. Gentleman know the difference between a manufacturer and an entrepreneur?

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) will explain to his hon. Friend the point that I am making.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am asking the hon. Gentleman to explain.

Mr. Tom Boardman: May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the section of the Prices and Incomes Board report on the Mallory battery case which states that Mallorys have had no direct competition in this country?

Mr. Hattersley: Exactly. Competition would bring it down in the theoretical world about which we have heard from hon. Members opposite this evening, but competition did not bring it down in the real world.
What I find the most astounding feature of these debates is that Opposition members who claim that we live in a world of economic unreality go on to establish their theoretical case of perfect competition which does not exist, has not existed and cannot be created.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) says, "But the Mallory battery price is still up." Yes, it is, and until the Bill becomes law we have no power to reduce prices. Hon. Members opposite who are complaining that, despite the expose by the Prices and Incomes Board and the hard work of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, Mallory battery prices remain high, cannot in all consistency vote against these proposals, which give the Government the power and the opportunity to reduce prices. To my mind, that would be inconsistency of a very high order indeed.
I said in Committee, and I say again, that there are many areas and many occasions when competition exists in something approaching a complete form, and will in itself keep the price down. I said in Committee that as a contribution to that attitude I regarded the Resale Prices Act as a very important step forward, but, clearly, competition would not always be enough.
I take again the Mallory battery case, which is surely the most extraordinary example of how the only way a price reduction in an important and sensitive area of production can and should be effected by Government intervention.

Mr. James Dance: But does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Board of Trade, which sent a circular to the needle trade, which is represented in my constituency, saying that the trade itself must get in touch with its retailers and tell them to keep their profit margins down? Surely this is a matter for the Government. It is important for manufacturers to keep good relations with their retailers, and this is exactly what the Government is trying to stop.

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to make a general statement about that, I am strongly in favour of manufacturers keeping on good terms with their retailers, but I am also strongly in favour of retailers not taking excessive profits and exploiting people. I am not making an estimate of how often this happens. I am saying that the Government must have power to act against it when it does happen.
I am not subscribing to the more absurd examples given by hon. Members opposite of how this might happen in unlikely situations. All I am saying is that the policy enables us to examine prices of all sorts, retail prices and manufacturer's prices. Sometimes that will produce a situation in which we discover that retailers' margins are higher than they can reasonably be expected to be, and when that situation comes about the Government must, and does, reserve the right to take action under the Bill to see that these margins, and eventually these prices, are reduced.
Of course, the Amendments imply that this is unnecessary because of what I believe is an unwarrantable and unwarranted faith in competition. If it was like that it would be a help and a comfort, but since it is not the Government are taking power to make prices policy gradually more realistic and more reasonable than it would be without Government intervention.

12.30 a.m.

Sir J. Foster: The hon. Member started by saying that the criteria for price reductions were not only the ones in the


White Paper which will be debated and will then be a Schedule to the Bill, but that paragraph 7 of the Schedule to the 1966 Act also applies. I think that he is wrong about that, because in Cmnd. 3590 the criteria for price reductions are stated exhaustively. That is the point of difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself. I shall not read out the details; they were read out and argued fully by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hattersley: It is in paragraph 7 of the White Paper in the hon. and learned Gentleman's hand.

Sir J. Foster: Paragraph 7 says:
There will be unavoidable increases in price … but it is essential that there should be continuing efforts to contain cost increases … to prevent unjustifiable price increases … 
He will admit that he is wrong about paragraph 7. It does not seem to apply to price reductions.
The more important economic point arose out of the hon. Gentleman's attack on competition, when he prayed in aid the case of Mallory batteries. We have said that the Mallory batteries case was one for reference to the Monopolies Commission, because if the company had made excessive profits it was due to the fact that it had an excesisve market power, and that it was not right to give the Government power to reduce prices just because the firm had excessive market power. We said that it should have been referred to the Monopolies Commission. If the Minister reduces the prices of Mallory batteries he removes any opportunity of competition coming in, because if the margin is reduced right down the opportunities for competition are eliminated.
The Mallory batteries case stands by itself. The general argument remains that the ordinary market forces will reduce prices and that the Government, by taking on the burden of trying to reduce the prices by specific orders after a recommendation by the Board, will not succeed. This argument has been developed adequately by my hon. Friend. It is no

good saying that the Mallory batteries case shows that there is a need for a prices and incomes policy to reduce prices throughout industry.

Sufficient powers are contained in the Monopolies Commission. It would be impossible to imagine that the Government can succeed by referring certain prices to the Board and then having a recommendation from the Board, because it is working on criteria which do not take account of the way in which commerce and industry work.

The party opposite does not believe in competition. We can see the result of this in the failure of the nationalised industries. We can also see the result of its failure to appreciate the way in which the market policy works, in that it is always creating new Ministries, commissions and committees, which have the effect of reducing the interplay of market forces. We believe that the interplay of market prices is the right way to get the economy on its feet. Hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that their prices and incomes policy will do this. But the test, after four years of Labour Government, must be based on which ideology has succeeded.

The voluntary policy which the right hon. Lady claims has succeeded has, in fact, only succeeded in bring the country to the brink of ruin. This has been due entirely to the Government's belief that if one regulates matters, one will secure the right economic climate for productivity to flourish, but their belief is misconceived. We wish, by the Amendment, to cut down the power of the Government to investigate possible price reductions in at least those cases where there is no retail price maintenance and no recommended prices.

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The House divided: Ayes 269. Noes 219.

Division No. 247.]
AYES
[12.35 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Anderson, Donald
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Albu, Austen
Archer, Peter
Barnes, Michael


Alldritt, Walter
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Barnett, Joel


Allen, Scholefield
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bence, Cyril




Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William
Molloy, William


Bidwell, Sydney
Harper, Joseph
Moonman, Eric


Binns, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bishop, E. S.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Blackburn, F.
Haseldine, Norman
Morris, Charles R. (Openahaw)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moyle, Roland


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boston, Terence
Henig, Stanley
Murray, Albert


Boyden, James
Harbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bradley, Tom
Hilton, W. S.
Norwood, Christopher


Brooks, Edwin
Horner, John
Oakes, Cordon


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oram, Albert E.


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orme, Stanley


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Hoy, James
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Park, Trevor


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hynd, John
Pavitt, Laurence


Coe, Denis
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pentland, Norman


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, C.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Randall, Harry


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Dees, Merlyn


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.Pc'as)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dell, Edmund
Ledger, Ron
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roebuck, Roy


Dewar, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dobson, Ray
Lee, John (Reading)
Rose, Paul


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ryan, John


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Loughlin, Charles
Sheldon, Robert


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Luard, Evan
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Mrs.Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ellis, John
McCann, John
Skeffington, Arthur


English, Michael
MacColl, James
Slater, Joseph


Ennals, David
MacDermot, Niall
Small, William


Ensor, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Snow, Julian


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McGuire, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn, G. R.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Swingler, Stephen


Foley, Maurice
Maclennan, Robert
Taverne, Dick


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Varley, Eric G.


Fowler, Gerry
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Manuel, Archie
Wallace, George


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gardner, Tony
Marquand, David
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Garrett, W E.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wellbeloved, James


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Maxwell, Robert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Miller. Dr. M. S.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hamling, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George







Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Woof, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Yates, Victor
Mr. Ernest Armstrong


Winnick, David

Mr. Alan Fitch




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhew, Victor
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gower, Raymond
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Astor, John
Grant, Anthony
Nott, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Onslow, Cranley


Awdry, Daniel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grieve, Percy
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Balniel, Lord
Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Batsford, Brian
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. C. F.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Peel, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peyton, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
PiKe, Miss Mervyn


Biffen, John
Hastings, Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner


Biggs-Davison, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pounder, Rafton


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Heseltine, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Black, Sir Cyril
Higgins, Terence L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Blaker, Peter
Hiley, Joseph
Prior, J. M. L.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Pym, Francis


Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hooson, Emlyn
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hordern, Peter
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Braine, Bernard
Hornby, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brewis, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bruce-Gartlyne, J.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Bryan, Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Burden, F. A.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Royle, Anthony


Campbell, Bruce (Oldham, W )
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Campbell, Gordon
Jopling, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Cass, Rt. Hn. Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cary, Sir Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharples, Richard


Channon, H. P. G.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kimball, Marcus
Silvester, Frederick


Clark, Henry
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)


Clegg, Walter
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Speed, Keith


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lancaster, col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Cordle, John
Lane, David
Stodart, Anthony


Corfield, F. V.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tapsell, Peter


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crowder, F. P.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cunningham, sir Knox
Lubbock, Eric
Temple, John M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacArthur, Ian
Tilney, John


Dance, James
Mackenzie, Alasdalr(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir H.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N )
Macleod Rt. Hn. Iain
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Deedee, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McMaster, Stanley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Doughty, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Wall, Patrick


Drayson, G. B.
Maginnis, John E.
Walters, Dennis


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Marten, Neil
Weatherill, Bernard


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Webster, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c't1e-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Farr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miscampbell, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Worsley, Marcus


Foster, Sir John
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Montgomery, Fergus
Younger, Hn. George


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Gibson-Watt, David
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. Jasper More and


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made: —

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 38, in page 3, line 24, after 'charges' insert:
'except that where there is no recom-

mended retail selling price or charge the manufacturer's price or charge only shall be referred to the Board'.—[Mr. John Page.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 273.

Division No. 248.]
AYES
[12.49 a.m


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gibson-Watt, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Allaeon, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monro, Hector


Astor, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife E.)
Montgomery, Fergus


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
More, Jasper


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Goodhew, Victor
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gower, Raymond
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Balniel, Lord
Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar


Batsford, Brian
Grant-Ferris, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey


Bell, Ronald
Grieve, Percy
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Curden, Harcid
Nott, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Onslow, Cranley


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Orr, Capt. L.P.S.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page Graham (Crosby)


Blaker, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, John (Farrow, W.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hastings, Stephen
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Body, Richard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peel, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Higgins, Terence L.
Peyton, John


Brains, Bernard
Hilley, Joseph
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brewis, John
Hill, J.E.B.
Pink, R. Bonner


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hooson, Emlyn
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Prior, J.M.L.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pym, Francis


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sit Peter


Campbell, Gordon
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Clark, Henry
Jopling, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Clegg, Walter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Royle, Anthony


Cordle, John
Kimball, Marcus
Russell, Sir Ronald


Corfield, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sharples, Richard


Crouch, David
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Crowder, F. P.
Lane, David
Silvester, Frederick


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speed, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lioyd, lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stainton, Keith


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Stodart, Anthony


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lubbock, Eric
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacArthur, Ian
Summers, Sir Spencer


Doggd-Parker, Douglas
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Tapsell, Peter


Doughty, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Drayson, G. B.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McMaster, Stanley
Temple, John M.


Eden, Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tilney, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Errington, Sir Eric
Maude, Angus
Vickers, Dame Joan


Farr, John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walters, Dennis


Fortescue, Tim
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Webster, David


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Miscampbell, Norman
Williams, Donald (Dudley)




Wills, Sir Cerald (Bridgwater)
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Wylie, N. R.
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Wood, Ht. Hn. Richard
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Woodnutt, Mark






NOES


Abse, Leo
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacDermot, Niall


Albu, Austen
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Macdonald, A. H.


Alldritt, Walter
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael


Allen, Scholefiels
Forrester, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Anderson, Donald
Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Grogor (Rutherglen)


Archer, Peter
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Frecson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Gardner, Tony
Maclennan, Robert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Garrett, W. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Barnes, Michael
Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin


Barnett, Joel
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bence, Cyril
Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bidwell, Sydney
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallialieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Binns, John
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Manuel, Archie


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, David (Rolher Valley)
Marks, Kenneth


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, E. (Brightside)
Marquand, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamling, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Booth, Albert
Hannan, William
Maxwell, Robert


Boston, Terence
Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Christopher


Boyden, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bradley, Tom
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mendelson, J. J.


Brooks, Edwin
Haseldine, Norman
Mikardo, Ian


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hattersley, Roy
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Miller. Dr. M. S.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
 Heffer, Eric S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Henig, Stanley
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Molloy, William


Buchan, Norman
Hilton, W. S.
Moonman, Eric


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Horner, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cant, R. B.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carmichael, Neil
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howie, W.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Coe, Denis
Hoy, James
Murray, Albert


Coleman, Donald
Huckfield, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Norwood, Christopher


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian


Cronin, John
Hynd, John
Oram, Albert E.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Orme, Stanley


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Oswald, Thomas


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, Trevor


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


de Fretas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dewar, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pentland, Norman


Dobson, Ray
Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Doig, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dunn, James A.
Lawson, George
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunnett, Jack
Ledger, Ron
Probert, Arthur


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Randall, Harry


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rees, Merlyn


Eadie, Alex
Lee, John (Reading)
Richard, Ivor


Edelman, Maurice
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Ellis, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Ennals, David
Loughlin, Charles
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Ensor, David
Luard, Evan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roebuck, Roy


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rose, Paul


Fernyhough, E.
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fletcher, Ted m (Darlington)
McCann, John
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Foley, Maurice
MacColl, James
Ryan, John







Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Sheldon, Robert
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Tinn, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Urwin, T. W.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Skeffington, Arthur
Wallace, George
Winnick, David


Slater, Joseph
Watkins, David (Consett)
Woof, Robert


Small, William
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Yates, Victor


Snow, Julian
Wellbeloved, James



Spriggs, Leslie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene



Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Whitlock, William
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'a later date)' and insert:
'within three months thereof)'.
The Amendment deals with the interval between the making of a price reduction Order and its coming into force. From the Government's point of view such an Order should ideally come into force as soon as it is made. The provision for an interval between the date of the Order and its coming into force is included in the Bill purely in the interests of the manufacturers or traders concerned, so as to allow time for them to make the necessary arrangements to observe the provisions of the Order, for example, by amending price lists.
The time needed would vary from Order to Order depending on the nature of the goods or services concerned and, for example, on whether one or two undertakings or an industry or trade as a whole was affected. It would in most cases be a delay of days or, at the most, weeks, as stated by me in Committee. There might, however, be contingencies in which a rather longer delay was needed for the purposes of the orderly introduction of the price change.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. Because of the noise I am having some difficulty in hearing the Minister.

An Hon. Member: The Minister should speak up.

Mr. Walker: If hon. Members opposite would speak down a little they might be able to hear more without having to strain their ears.
I was pointing out that we are dealing with an Amendment concerning the interval between the making of an Order and its coming into force. Hon. Mem-

bers opposite in Committee expressed considerable concern at the open-ended-ness of the phrase "a later date". I am glad to be able to say that we have responded exactly to their representations. After careful scrutiny of the Amendment they moved in Committee we are prepared to accept it, and I am glad to be able to commend it to the House.

Mr. R. Carr: We are grateful to the Government for moving the Amendment. It does not meet our case entirely, because we do not like the whole Clause, but we appreciate the Government's acceptance of the point we made in Committee that the phrase "a later date" was very vague and needed to be made more precise, and we are glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hattersley: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 3, line 32, to leave out from 'order' to end of line 33.
We seek by this Amendment to remove an Amendment carried in Committee. Rt. hon. and hon. Members opposite who were in the Committee will agree that, whatever the merits of their Amendment, it was not the strength of their argument which resulted in its being carried but the unfortunate juxtaposition of a division and the dinner interval. However, I do not minimise the strength of the argument which preceded the dinner interval.
The Amendment carried in Committee reduced one specific area of power which the Government seek to have. If that Amendment remained part of the Bill, the Government's powers to reduce prices would come to a sudden and, in our view, arbitrary end in the middle of 1969. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sure that my hon. Friends will note with interest the enthusiasm of hon. Members opposite for reducing this specific power and will feel that, whatever


else in the Bill has some marginal disadvantages, our intention that price reductions should be a central theme of our policy in the hard 18 months ahead should not be minimised by our power to make reductions coming to a sudden and arbitrary end in August, 1969.
If the Bill were to stand in the form in which it came from Committee, the maximum power we might hope for would be a price reduction power lasting six or eight months. Manifestly it would not be right to maintain powers to limit wage increases and price increases and relinquish a substantial part of the power directed to the right, duty and obligation which the Government seek to bring about occasional selective and vitally important price reductions.

Mr. R. Carr: This is a shabby trick. The Parliamentary Secretary says that the Amendment was not passed in Committee because of the strength of our arguments. Our arguments applied to the terminal dates for the powers in all parts of the Bill, not just to prices. They were supported by hon. Members opposite, and the fact that we wore the Government down and won this point due due to the strength of our argument, which was accepted and supported by hon. Members opposite, and to the massive abstention of Government members, including that of the First Secretary.
The Division in Committee was carried by 12 votes to 11. But for the absence of the right hon. Lady, there would have been a tie, and no doubt, if it had been the Government's will, the Chairman would have had to use his casting vote to maintain the position. When a decision is taken by a Committee with the concurrence of the Minister, it might be allowed to stand.
It is noticeable that the right hon. Lady evidently does not feel very strongly about this matter, or presumably she would have been here to move the Amendment and explain why she has changed her mind. She was so infrequently present at our debates in Committee that perhaps she never quite knew where we had got to.
The hon. Gentleman argues that it would be unfair to reduce the period in this part of the Bill. That argument is both unfair and false. We argued strongly that, if there had to be statutory power to delay, it should be the same for each

element in the Bill. There is more than one way of getting the uniformity the hon. Gentleman seeks. Instead of reversing the Committee's Amendment, he could amend the other parts of the Bill to bring in 11th August, 1969 as the terminal date for all the powers. That was the outspoken wish of a number of hon. Members opposite and I am sure it is the outspoken wish of the majority. The two previous Acts each lasted a year. Why does this Bill have to last 18 months? That point has never been answered.

Mr. Tom Boardman: The Undersecretary of State referred to our enthusiasm for reducing the powers in this part of the Bill. That was unfair of him. We have shown equal enthusiasm for shorter time limits for the other parts. The only distinction in Committee was that the Government showed less enthusiasm in opposing our time limit in this case. Perhaps it was accidental, but I like to think that it was also on the merit of the case.
There is a distinction between limiting the powers in this part of the Bill and limiting the powers in other parts. The distinction arises because this Clause provides for price reductions at a time when prices are rising as a deliberate act of Government policy. It would be inconsistent to allow these powers for price reductions to continue for a period extending beyond 11th August, 1969. The hon. Gentleman says the Amendment in Committee was carried by accident. I ask the House to accept that the accident was combined with merit.

Mr. Mawby: In Committee, we were interested in imposing shorter time limits in all parts of the Bill but were only successful in doing so in this part. The Government have always claimed that these are temporary powers. Even if the terminal date of 11th August, 1969, is retained, we shall by then have had prices and incomes legislation for almost five years. The question is: how temporary is temporary? I look forward, not with any enthusiasm, to the 1969 Prices and Incomes Bill which, again, will seek to extend these "temporary" measures which the Government have been foisting upon us for so long. I see no reason why this provision should be deleted when we voted in Standing Committee to add it to the Bill, and I join


with my right hon. and hon. Friends in hoping that at later stages of the Bill the Government will change other provisions to make them conform with this terminal date.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Ridley: This is the only power in the Bill to reduce anything. Other provisions give power to order a standstill on prices, wages or dividends, but this Clause gives power to make unspecified reductions, and enormous reductions in the prices of some commodities could be enforced by Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those reductions could be disastrous for some sections of the economy, a fact which hon. Members opposite below the Gangway are cheering in a most extraordinary way. These reductions might cause serious unemployment in their constituencies, and no doubt they would cheer slightly less loudly if that were to happen.
We are in rapidly changing economic circumstances. Prices are going up all the time. As the Under-Secretary has just said, we have a background of generally rising prices. The latest indices show an enormous rise of 2·2 per cent. We have another Budget ahead of us in April and perhaps more before and after that. The uncertain international situation may lead to all sorts of difficulties with prices, and in these circumstances it would be inappropriate for the Government to have powers to make Orders to reduce prices right through to the end of 1969 and beyond. I hope that the power to order a standstill will also end much earlier, but to take power to make enforced and arbitrary reductions in prices purely for window dressing reasons for up to two years from now, at a time when there is a totally uncertain economic situation, when there are

rapidly rising prices and when there are nasty effects from international monetary goings-on, is absolutely unwarrantable.

I hope that the Government will make the Amendments which are necessary to bring other parts of the Bill into line with this and that they will at least make an honest start by leaving the Bill as it is, letting the decision of the Standing Committee stand, and so make some sense of the Clause.

Mr. Emery: I should like to show the Government the illogicality of their argument. Earlier today, the Under-Secretary argued that the Opposition were keen on having a proper phasing out of certain powers. These Amendments are positive proof that that is not the case. We want all these powers to come to an absolute and early halt. It is wrong to suggest that it is only the power to make price reductions which we want to cease early. We want all the powers, across the board, to cease. Whether by good sense or ineptitude, the Government allowed this change to be made in Standing Committee and they should now seek to make other Amendments to bring other parts of the Bill into line with this. Ending the power to make price reductions at an earlier date would not upset the Government's planned timing of the Bill.
As was pointed out in Committee, this was particularly different from the other Amendments dealing with reduction in time. Because this is dealing with price reduction, which most of us believe should not be in the Bill, I see no reason why the Government should bring this into line with the other dates. I hope that my hon. Friends will resist the Government's blandishments as much as possible.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 212.

Division No. 249.]
AYES
[1.20 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Bence, Cyril
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Albu, Austen
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Brooks, Edwin


Alldritt, Walter
Bidwell, Sydney
Broughton, Dr. A, D. D.


Allen, Scholefield
Binns, John
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)


Anderson, Donald
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)


Archer, Peter
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Armstrong, Ernest
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Buchan, Norman


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Booth, Albert
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boston, Terence
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Barnes, Michael
Boyden, James
Cant, R. B.


Barnett, Joel
Bradley, Tom
Carmichael, Neil




Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Albert E.


Coe, Denis
Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger,Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, Trevor


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, s.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Judd, Frank
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, William (Rugby)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Probert, Arthur


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Randall, Harry


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn


Dewar, Donald
Ledger, Ron
Richard, Ivor


Dobson, Ray
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Driberg, Tom
Lee, John (Reading)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dunn, James, A.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Roebuck, Roy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Rose, Paul


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Luard, Evan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ellis, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Ennals, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sheldon, Robert


Ensor, David
McCann, John
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacColl, James
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Macdonald, A. H.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Foley, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Skeffington, Arthur


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Slater, Joseph


Ford, Ben
Mackie, John
Small, William


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Snow, Julian


Fowler, Gerry
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gardner, Tony
MacPherson, Malcolm
Swingler, Stephen


Carrett, W. E.
Matron, Peter (Preston, S.)
Taverne, Dick


Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P.C.
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tinn, James


Goulary, Harry
Manuel, Archie
Urwin, T.W.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Eric G.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Marquand, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richrd
Wallace, George


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manson, Rt. Hn. Roy
Watkins, David (Consett)


Griffiths, Eddie

Watkins, tudor (Brecon &amp;Radnor)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maxwell, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Hamling, William
Mayhew, Christopher
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hannan, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, J.J.
Whitlock, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milkardo, Ian
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Haseldine, Norman
Miller, Dr. M.S.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edwars (Blyth)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mitcheil, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Henig, Stanley
Moonman, Eric
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Horner, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Winnick, David


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Woof Robert


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Moyle, Roland
Yates, Victor


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howie, W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)



Hoy, James
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Huckfield, Leslie
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Neil McBride.


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bell, Ronald


Astor, John
Balniel, Lord
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)


Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)







Berry, Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pee|, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Percival, Ian


Body, Richard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peyton, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hastings, Stephen
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heseltine, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Braine, Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Brewis, John
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hill, J. E. B.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Prior, J.M. L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Francis


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt,John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Pater


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Campbell, Gordon
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridsdale, Julian


Channon, H. P. G.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clark, Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Royle, Anthony


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kimball, Marcus
Scott, Nicholas


Cordle, John
Kirk, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Lane, David
Silvester, Frederick


Crouch, David
Langtord-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Dudley (Wwick&amp;L'mington)


Crowder, F. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, John (Lonndon &amp; W'minster)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
speed, Keith


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stainton, Keith


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Stodart, Anthony


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lubbock, Eric
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Summers, Sir Specer


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp; Crom'ty)
Tapsell, Pete



Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macleod Rt. Hn. Iain
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Temple, John M.


Doughty, Charles
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tilney, John


Drayson, G.B.
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maginnis, John E.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus
Vickers, Dame Joan


Elliott,P.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walters, Dennis


Eyre, Reginald
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Weatherill, Bernard


Farr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Webster, David


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstons)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Misoampbell, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Foster, Sir John




Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Monro, Hector
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glimour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
More, Jasper
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Glimour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Woodnutt, Mark


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhart, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wylie, N. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar
Younger, Hn. George


Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey



Grant-Ferris, R.
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gresham Cooke, R.
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Grieve, Percy
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Humphrey Atkins

Mr. Hattcrsley: I beg to move Amendment No. 148, in page 4, line 15, at end insert:
'Any written consent given under this subsection shall be notified in the Gazette'.
I concede that the Amendment has been put down as a result of the strength of the argument put forward in Committee, most of it coming from hon.

Gentlemen opposite. The Amendment requires my right hon. Friend, when she gives consent for the variation of an Order under the Clause, to publish the notification of that consent in the appropriate Gazette. The House will know that consents simply reduce the severity of an Order, and on no occasion do they intensify it, but there is clearly a strong


argument that when my right hon. Friend decides that a price reduction Order should in some way be lifted or alleviated potential customers and those subject to the Order should have a way of knowing about it.
The common way of knowing about it, and the way which brings it to the attention of other people and to the attention of the newspapers, is for the notice to be published in the Gazette. That is what I promised to do, and that is what we do by the submission to the House of the Amendment.

Mr. R. Carr: Once again, we are grateful to the Government for having taken note of the points raised by us in Committee and bringing forward this Amendment.
There is one minor point on which I hope the hon. Gentleman can enlighten us. Our Amendment No. 46, which we tabled before we were certain that the Government would bring forward their own, mentions the London, Edinburgh, and Belfast Gazettes. We took this from other legislation in the belief that that was the standard form. The Government Amendment refers grandly to the Gazette. We were merely copying what the Government have done in another place, but provided this gives the necessary publicity, which is what we want, we are grateful to the Government.

Mr. Hattersley: The Amendment does not copy the Gazette from other legislation. It copies the Gazette from this legislation. It is defined in precise terms in Section 34(4) of the 1966 Act. There the Gazette means the London Gazette, and, in addition, if I might use the term with the greatest respect, whichever regional Gazette is most appropriate.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Emery: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 4, line 15 at end insert:
(5) An order made by the Secretary of State under this part of this Act—

(a) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made;
(b) shall be contained in a statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament;

Provided that notice of such variation or revocation shall be published in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes not less than seven days before the making of the order.




This might be considered to be a fairly small point, but it is one of considerable constitutional and legal significance. We are considering here Orders which are made for price reductions. Such Orders, as is made clear in Clause 4(4), shall prescribe the prices and charges which can legally be charged on a price reduction Order.
But it then goes on to say:
but where anything is done with the written consent of a Minister making or joining in making an order under this section, it shall not by reason of that order be unlawful under this section.
That is a lot of words, but what it really means is that by the written consent of the Minister that Minister can alter what is lawful. It means that an Order which is made on an individual firm to reduce its prices could be altered by the written consent of the Minister, or that an Order made on an industry could be altered by the written consent of the Minister for one or for a number of firms.
We think that this is wrong. We consider that it should be made quite clear that if there are to be alterations the House should be properly notified of this, and that it should not just be left to the flexibility of Ministers to be able to alter any Order that has been approved by this House at their will.
I realise that the Government will argue that it could well be to the advantage of the firm not to have to comply with the Order made, and, therefore, that immediate flexibility should be given to the Minister to allow this alleviation to a specific firm. There is, of course, some sense in that argument, but it is only a very limited sense because first of all, it still gives the power to the Minister, merely by his signature, to alter a Statutory Instrument or an Order of this House.
Secondly, if this was an industrial Order, and an exception was being made for certain firms, it would mean that other firms might not have the full knowledge or cognisance of it. We think it very much better that this should be done in the normal manner or an Order or Statutory Instrument.
I use as an example the industrial side. Let us take a firm such as G.K.N., in the Midlands, which manufactures fasteners. It would be quite possible for


the Government to make an Order, after a recommendation by the Board, that the price of fasteners should be reduced. This would be over the whole of the industry but perhaps for reasons of profitability, or something else, the Minister would make an exemption for certain firms. This, under the procedure in the Bill, would be done purely by the letter of the Minister.
We believe that because this is an alteration of a Statutory Instrument it ought to be made by another Statutory Instrument, and that it is of the greatest importance that extra power should not be given to Ministers in this way, because it is open to misuse. It would be quite possible, unless the Amendment is carried, for the Government to use their powers in a rather roundabout fashion to apply pressure on specific industries. If the Prices and Incomes Board recommended that a specific price reduction should be made, it would be possible for the order to follow out that price reduction but for the Government, by a side letter, to say to that company or industry, "You do not have to reduce to the full amount of the Order, you need reduce only by a half. However, we would like you to do these things." It is all very well to say that sort of moral suasion would not be used, but it must be a temptation, and it would be possible under the present authority for the alteration of Statutory Instruments which exists in the Bill.
It would be quite wrong to allow the Minister, on his own signature, to alter a Statutory Instrument for one person or one company, or even a group of companies. It might be in the interests of the company or companies concerned, but not in the interests of the industry generally.
We suggest that the relevant Gazettes should be used for publication. Our Amendment was put down before the Amendment which we have just agreed to, and if the Government would accept the Amendment I should be happy to ensure that the reference to the Gazette should apply as required by the Minister. That is a minor point.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is the kind of dispensing power that the House has always set its face against in the past?

Mr. Emery: It is. It is not only a dispensing power; it is a power for the alteration of a Statutory Instrument, which we do not think should be allowed merely on the signature of a Minister.

Mr. Harold Walker: Having listened to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) I can only assume that he has tabled and moved the wrong Amendment. Nothing in it would delete subsection (4), to which he is taking exception, because it would allow the Minister to make written variations in a Statutory Instrument already made. The powers that the Amendment seeks to write into the Clause are already in it. The reference is to Section 20 of the 1966 Act, which contains, with the exception of the final sentence, exactly the provisions that the hon. Member seeks to introduce by his Amendment.
Any variation that may be made to an existing Order by written consent by one Minister—who, incidentally, shall be one of the Ministers who were party to making the Order in the first place—must be seen against the limited provisions of subsection (3), which provides that
No order made for the purposes of this Section shall impose … a restriction more stringent
than those recommended by the Board.
So any variations, anyhow, will be relaxing variations, which I assume would be welcomed by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends.
In any case, they would be made only after representations by the commercial interests affected, and the provision for the making of alterations by written consent is not unique. It is inserted so that on marginal issues the Minister or Ministers shall be able to take speedy action instead of having to go through the statutory provisions involved in making an Order.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 260.

Division No. 250.]
AYES
[1.45 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Nott, John


Astor, John
Goodhart, Philip
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n&amp; M'd'n)
Goodhew, Victor
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Awdry, Daniel
Gower, Raymond
Orr-Ewtng, Sir Ian


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Balniel, Lord 
Grieve, Percy
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Batsford, Brian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gurden, Harold
Peel, John


Bell, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Percival, Ian


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Peyton, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pink R. Bonner


Biffen, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pounder, Rafton


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Birch, Rt, Hit. Nigel
Hastings, Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Black, Sir Cyril
Heseltine, Michael
Prior,J. M. L.


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Body, Richard
Hill, J. E. B.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bossom, Sir Clive
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braine, Bernard
Hornby, Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brewis, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Bruce-Gartlyne, J.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffry


Bryan, Paul
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bullus, Sir Eric 
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Royle, Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jopling, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Joseph, Bt. Hn. Sir Keith
Scott-Hopkins, James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharples, Richard


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kimball, Marcus
Silvester, Frederick


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)


Clark, Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert 
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lane, David
Stodart, Anthony


Cordle, John 
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Corfield, F. V.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Summers, Sir Spencer


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tapsell, Peter


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Lloyd, Ian (P' tsm' th, Langstone)
Taylor, sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crouch, David
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crowder, F. P.
Lubbock, Erick
Temple, John M.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
MacArthur, Ian
Tilney, John


Dalkeitn, Eral of
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dance, James
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry
Macleod Rt. Hn. Iain
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
McMaster, Stanley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farham)
walker, Peter (Worcester)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maddan, Martin
Wall, Patrick


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maginnis, John E.
Walters, Dennis


Doughty, Charles
Marten, Neil
Weatherlll, Bernard


Drayson, G. B.
Maude, Angus
Webster, David


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Eden, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Elliott,R.W.(NVtle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Emery, Peter
Mille, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Eyre, Reginald
Miscampbell, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Farr, John
MitcheM, David (Basingstoke)
Worsley, Marcus


Fisher, Nigel
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Flelcher-Cooke, Charles
Montgomery, Fergus
Younger, Hn. George


Fortescue, Tim
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Foster, Sir John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Gibson-Watt, David
Murton, Oscar
Mr.Jasper More.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Neave, Airey





NOES


Abse, Leo
Armstrong, Ernest
Bence, Cyril


Albu, Austen
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)


Alldritt, Walter
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bidwell, Sydney


Allen, Scholefield
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Binns, John


Anderson, Donald
Barnes, Michael
Bishop, E. S.


Archer, Peter
Barnett, Joel
Blackburn, F.







Blenkinsop, Arthur
Henig, Stanley
Moyle, Roland


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Herbison,Rt.Hn. Margaret
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Booth, Albert
Hilton, W.S.
Murray, Albert


Boston, Terence
Horner, John
Norwood, Christopher


Boyden, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Bradley, Tom
Howarth Harry (Wellingborough)
O'Malley, Brian


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oram, Albert E.


Brooks, Edwin
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orme, Stanley


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyr.e,W.)
Hoy, James
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Huckfield, Leslie
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow,Provan)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, B. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F bury)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Park, Trevor


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Spbum)
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurence


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, Sir Arthure (Edge Hill)
Pearson, Arthure (Ponthypridd)


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pentland, Norman


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Coe, Denis
Jenkins Rt Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Probert, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Randall, Harry


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,s.)
Rees, Merlyn


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Richard, Ivor


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Dr. David (W' worth, Central)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson Georgo
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St P'c'as)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ledger Ron
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'slow, E.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Roebuck, Roy


Dell, Edmund
Lee, John (Reading)
Rose, Paul


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dewar, Donald
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Ryan, John


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dunn, James A.
Luard, Evan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)





Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Skeffington, Arthur


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCann, John
Slater, Joseph


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacColl, James
Small, William


Ellis, John
MacDermot, Niall
Snow, Julian


English, Michael
Macdonald, A. H.
Spriggs, Leslie


Ennals, David
McGuire, Michael
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Ensor, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fernyhough, E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)
Swingler, Stephen


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,w.)


Foley, Maurice
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)




Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T.W.


Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin
Varley, Eric G.


Forrester, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fowler, Gerry
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wallace,George


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Watkins Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Gardener, Tony
Manuel, Archie
Wellbeloved, James


Garrett, W. E.
Marks, Kenneth
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P.G.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Whitlock, William


Gourlay, Harry 
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Maxwell, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Greenwood Rt.Hn.Anthony
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mellish, Rt. Hn.Robert
William, Mrs, Shirley (Hitchin)


Griffths,David (Rother Valley)
Mendelson, J.J.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Griffiths,Eddie
Mikardo, Ian
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hamling, William
Miller. Dr. M. S.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hannnan, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Winnick, David


Harper, Joseph
Mitchell, R.C. (S'th pton, Test)
Woof, Robert


Harrison, Walter (Wakfield)
Molloy, William
Yates, Victor


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moonman, Eric



Haseldine, Norman
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans


Healey Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. J. D. Concannon


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, John (Aberavon)

Sir J. Foster: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 4, line 33, at end insert—
(7) Any person, company or partnership affected by an order made under this section may, during the time that the order is in force, make representations in writing to the Minister that the order should be varied or revoked if, since the date when the order came into force, changes have taken place in the circumstances of the person, company or partnership that are relevant to the price to which the order relates, and the Minister shall consider such representations.
(8) (a) An order made by the Secretary of State under this part of this Act—

(i) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made;
(ii) shall be contained in a statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament;


(b) the variation or revocation of an order made under this section shall not affect liability for any offence committed before the variation or revocation takes effect.
I draw attention to the wording of the Amendment to show that its rejection, as I anticipate, by the Government would be an example of their being unfair. I know that there are many hon. Members opposite who, if they are persuaded that they are being unfair, will be troubled by their conscience and they may accede to the Amendment.
I will explain the unfairness of rejecting the Amendment. It suggests a mild appeal procedure in the case of price reductions. I describe it as mild because we propose that when an Order is contemplated anybody affected could make a representation in writing to the Minister, who would have to consider it. That is a very mild appeal procedure, merely to get the Minister to consider something which he may have overlooked.
In Committee, a good deal of ridicule was poured on this suggested appeal procedure because it involves the possibility that any person affected by a price reduction could make representations in writing. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) spent several minutes saying how idiotic the Opposition were, and how little they had done their homework, to introduce an Amendment which might allow thousands of people to make representations in writing.
The Under-Secretary did not fall into that trap, because he knew that we were merely copying the appeal procedure which applies to restraint of wages and

of increases in price. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Darlington was right in saying that we were idiotic, he was saying that the Government were idiotic in having introduced this appeal procedure for other things.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: The hon. and learned Member is getting confused, perhaps because we are in the small hours of the morning. The observations to which he has referred were made on an Amendment dealing with the procedure to be applied by individuals and trade unions. It had nothing to do with the Clause, which relates to prices.

Sir J. Foster: The gravamen of the hon. Member's charge was that it was idiotic for the Conservative Opposition to introduce an Amendment which would allow individuals to protest, because that would enable thousands of people to do so. It did not suit him to listen to the point that the Government themselves had provided that every member of a trade union could make representations in writing. He did not know about the Schedule to the 1967 Act, which provides that
in the case of a proposal relating to an award or settlement, by or on behalf of … employees
anybody can make a representation in writing.
2.0 a.m.
I expect a similar criticism to be advanced of this proposed appeal procedure for price reductions. The Under-Secretary might say that this is equally absurd because all those affected by a price reduction might appeal in writing. The unfairness of rejecting the Amendment is this. The Schedule to the 1967 Act provides that, if there is a wages standstill or restraint, those affected can make a representation in writing and the Secretary of State shall consider it. We propose the same for price reductions. Yet the Government refuse. I assume that the Amendment will not be accepted.
The Government apparently think that it is fair to have representations in writing when it is a question of price increases, wage standstills, awards or settlements, but when it is a question of price reductions there cannot be representations. The Government say, "Why should persons who are affected by price reductions be entitled to make representa-


tions in writing?" If it is fair in the case of wage restraint or price increases, it is fair in the case of price reductions. For these reasons, I commend the Amendment to the sense of fairness of the House.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. and learned Gentleman puts me in some difficulty, because, if he is advocating what he seemed to be advocating, we have it already. If he is advocating what he advocated in Committee, I suggest that it is unnecessary. I must confine myself to what the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be advocating, which were powers similar in the field of price reductions to those obtaining for other forms of prices and incomes policy. Under subsection (2)(a), my right hon. Friend or other Ministers
shall … publish in the Gazette notice of the proposal to make it"—
that is, the Order—
which shall invite representations about the proposal to be made in writing within a stated period … 
That paragraph goes on to require other things of my right hon. Friend. Subsection (2)(b) requires my right hon. Friend or other Ministers to
take into consideration any representations so made.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman is simply asking that, as in other fields, there should be the opportunity for those affected, first, to know that the Order is to be made, secondly, to appeal against the Order, or at least to make representations against it, and, thirdly, to know that the Minister involved is statutorily obliged to take their appeals and references into account, that certainly exists in the Bill.
If, as on a previous occasion, the hon. and learned Gentleman wants such power to be extended to after the Order is made, I say that he knows full well that subsection (4) deals with written consents which empower my right hon. Friend or any other Minister to vary an Order once it has been made. That fact that power exists is in itself a very clear indication that there is the possibility of varying—and, indeed, there often is the intention to vary—an Order; and always it has to be from the point of

view of the complainant a variation for the better. Since that purpose exists, and since that intention exists, clearly my right hon. Friend is open to receive representations from those who think that the Order should be varied.
In Case 1, the power exists firmly and is written into the Bill. In Case 2, the power exists by implication. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel content with that.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5

DEFERMENT OF WAGES REGULATION ORDERS AND AGRICULTURAL WAGES ORDERS.

Mr. Biffen: I beg to move Amendment 49, in page 4, line 35, after ' orders', insert—
'in respect of recommended rates of £12 a week and above'.
This Amendment raises the whole question of wages council awards, and by the choice of the figure of £12 one seeks almost entirely, if not entirely, to delete the Clause. Almost all wages council awards refer to rates—I emphasise the term "rates"—well below £12. Therefore, the effective consequence of the Amendment would be not significantly different from that of Amendment 62, in the names of hon. Members opposite, which has not been selected.

Mr. Orme: Mr. Orme indicated assent.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) nods assent to that, he being one of the signatories to that Amendment, which would do little more than my Amendment 49.

Mr. Orme: Mr. Orme indicated assent.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman again assents.
Last evening, a number of us were privileged to join the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) in the Lobby on an Amendment of his with which we agreed, and tonight we should like to think that he will be persuaded to reciprocate. We have the dilemma of not knowing what might be the position of the Liberal Party, if only for this reason, that when this Clause, a Clause of vital significance for lower-paid and


agricultural workers, was before the Standing Committee, the representative of the Liberal Party was not there to record his vote.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Cheeky sod.

Mr. Biffen: Whether I am a cheeky sod I know not, and whether it be Parliamentary to call me a cheeky sod I know not. All I am doing is recalling what occurred. I am sure that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will be able to contribute to the debate in his own inimitable way, and that we look forward to hearing from him.

Mr. Lubbock: Not worth it.

Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman is is saying that his contribution is not worth it, he should not anticipate; perhaps it might be.
The Amendment has obvious connotations for the lower-paid, and undoubtedly it was with much the same purpose in mind that hon. Members opposite put down their Amendment 62. Incidentally, it touches closely the question to which the House addressed itself earlier today, namely, the whole question of equal pay. Anyone who refreshes his memory by looking through all the wages council regulations made so far this year, as I have done, cannot be struck by the very considerable difference between the rates recommended for male and female workers. I think that the House will be anxious to have at least this chance of a second reflection on this vital issue of different rates of pay for men and women.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Not again.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) says "Not again", but when the Secretary of State says that the wages bill is planned to go up by £500 million over the next seven years, when she adds it almost as an aside at the end of a debate, there must be some consequences for sterling. There must be a general assessment by people outside of what is likely to be the course of our economy as they wonder how this is to be brought about.
We are discussing a specific issue, the question of wages council awards, which will give the Government a very clear

chance to say just how they see their policy leading to ultimate equal pay.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to raise the question Of equal pay on this Amendment.

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was going to draw your attention to the wording of my Amendment, which refers to £12. I think that I can demonstrate its relevance to the question of equal pay, because the Wages Council Regulation (Milk Distributive Trades), England and Wales, Order, 1968,
… in respect of round salesmen being workers aged 21 years and over, in respect of male workers employed in areas B and C…",
offered rates of £12 and £12 4s. respectively, whereas for round saleswomen of exactly the same age it offered £11 6s. and £11 11s. 6d. respectively.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I dare say, but even that does not entitle the hon. Gentleman to argue the case for equal pay on this Amendment.

Mr. Biffen: It is not my intention to open up the whole question of equal pay, for which we all suffered a surfeit earlier. I am merely saying that one of the consequences of the £12 figure in the Amendment is that it touches on the question that in many wages council orders the distinction between the rates paid to men and to women will be brought fully into the open and will be capable of debate, interpretation and amendment. This must be so, judging from the case I have quoted, which shows the relevance of £12 in that instance.
But I do not want to argue the general case of how this affects the lower paid workers and the relevance of rates of £12 to whatever might be the actual earnings, because I know that these are arguments that hon. Members opposite and certain of my hon. Friends will wish to develop.
I should like to turn my attention to one other aspect of the Amendment. Throughout the Bill, we on this side have been seeking to limit the extent of Government interference. The wages council industries, ironically enough, are a very good example of where the market economy is at work. This is of particular significance on this Amendment because since Second Reading and the


Committee stage we have had the advantage of seeing the Donovan Report. Therefore, I wish to direct my remarks to the wages councils as they were examined and the incomes policy as it was adjudged by the Donovan Report, because we were unable to do this on Second Reading and in Committee.
2.15 a.m.
A very useful starting point is Donovan's own indication of what he thought was the aspiration of an incomes policy contained in paragraph 210, which is a good paragraph to get on the record:
Incomes policy must continue a lame and halting exercise so long as it consists in the planning of industry-wide agreements most of which exercise an inadequate control over pay.
This is fairly important when related to wages councils—

Mr. Lubbock: This is boring.

Mr. Biffen: —because Donovan went on to show that the reality of most wage council negotiations was that they did not have a particularly significant effect over the rates which were being earned or the earnings being paid in those industries.
In paragraph 260—and this will enthral the hon. Member for Orpington, whose rapt attention I enjoy so much—the reality of the wages council system as seen by Donovan was described thus:
Wages Councils are even less capable than most voluntary industry-wide collective bargaining bodies of exercising effective control over actual pay and conditions of work.
I conclude that those industries covered by wages councils are industries in which the market economy is remarkably effective. I am delighted by this. I am a defender of the market economy. Therefore, I naturally want to keep the hands of the Government off wages councils if what is described by Donovan is the reality.
Paragraph 278 of the Report reads:
Wages Council chairmen were reported generally to hold that Councils were not debarred from taking the prices and incomes policy into account and to assert that they commonly did so.
It was always the Government's argument that theirs was a voluntary policy. In the case of one award, the Minister said,"I shall be glad if you would con-

fine this award to the lowest paid". I remember the case being made by the present Minister of Power that this was a policy which was voluntarily agreed. This used to be the justification for so few Orders—because the policy was working. If those exhortations were sufficient, I wonder why we have this Clause.
Probably there was a degree of optimism whenever the Government used to say that all was well and that the only incomes which ever moved contrary to their policy were those which were being caught by an Order. The truth is that the law of the market has a remarkable ability to survive even this Government and a prices and incomes policy. As the Donovan Report said— and this will no doubt clinch the argument which will take the Liberal Party into the lobby with us—

Mr. Lubbock: When I saw this Amendment on the Notice Paper I was disposed to vote for it. The longer I listen to the hon. Gentleman the more I am persuaded against it.

Mr. Biffen: The disposition of the Liberal Party to become the lap dogs of the Government is well known. It was demonstrated last night. No speech of mine is necessary to drive the hon. Gentleman into the Government Lobby. But I do not want to be distracted by interventions from the Liberal Chief Whip.

Hon. Members: Where are all the Liberals?

Mr. Lubbock: They only come in to listen to important speeches. I have to listen to the hon. Gentleman for my sins. If he goes on much longer, I shall not remain.

Mr. Biffen: The conclusion of the Donovan Report, if I may get back to my peroration—

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman always makes such long speeches.

Mr. Biffen: —is argued in paragraph 279,
However, even if wages councils were able to take a wider view of their function they would still be faced with the fact that they do not and were never designed to exercise effective control over actual earnings and conditions in the industries with which they are


concerned and are, therefore, in no position to secure the observance of the incomes policy.
I suspect I may have anticipated an argument of the Under-Secretary of State but whereas it may appear to him as a means of rejecting the Amendment, how much it must appeal to all of us who believe in economic freedom to feel that it supports our contention that the wages council provision of Clause 5 should be deleted. In a non-unionised and fragmented industry it is impossible for the Government to control the movement of incomes. That is the reality of the wages council situation, and hon. Members opposite below the Gangway know that the concomitant of that is that it is unionised wages which will receive the attention of the Government. This is at the heart of so much of their sensitivity, and it is a sensitivity which I genuinely share.
The Amendment recognises the futility of Government supervised income negotiation. Whether this Amendment will commend itself to those who believe that the earnings in wage council industries are low enough to qualify those workers as lower-paid workers—and we are anxious to hear the Under-Secretary's views about that—or whether it is an argument for economic freedom, on which I base my case, at least we are united in agreeing that it is a deliberate attempt to limit the Government's ambitions—

Mr. Eric Heffer: Mr. Eric Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) rose—

Mr. Biffen: This is the peroration— and on that basis there should be the unity between hon. Members opposite below the Gangway and the Opposition tonight as there was last night.

Mr. Trevor Park: During the debate last night my hon. Friend the Member for Hudders-field, West (Mr. Lomas) declared that it was a prime objective of the Government's incomes policy to assist the lower-paid workers and to protect them against the higher-paid who, because of their powerful bargaining position, would force them even further down the scale. He was saying that the Bill contained a redistributive element and that one of its purposes was to protect the poorer and the weaker elements of the com-

munity against the richer and more powerful.
My right hon. Friend the First Secretary was being cast in the guise of Robin Hood and militant trade unions were being given the rôle of the Sheriff of Nottingham. In view of some of the things which have been happening recently, I hope that hon. Members will feel that the casting director was singularly inefficient.
However, my hon. Friend is entitled to his view. After all, he can pray in aid many statements which have been made from the Government Front Bench. But tonight is the test of the sincerity of those statements, because if the Government intend to assist the lower-paid workers, if they are determined to exempt poorer people from the restrictions which their approach would otherwise place upon them, they should be prepared to accept the Amendment. If they do not, their claims will be revealed as being totally without foundation, and the whole country will know that the words chime very strangely when compared with the deeds of the incomes policy.
Some of us hope to show in more detail in a later debate that not only are the Government not taking any action to protect the lower-paid, but that they are, under the terms of Schedule 2, placing on the lower-paid workers a restriction on retrospective pay awards which do not apply to other workers covered by the Bill.
2.30 a.m.
People on £35 or £40 a week may recoup what they have lost on standstill Orders by negotiating with their employer to secure retrospection, but workers in agriculture or wages council industries generally will have no such rights. They will be deliberately delayed under Schedule 2, paragraphs 3 and 7. The Amendment under discussion will limit the applicability of Clause 5 and in seeking to exempt workers earning under £12 a week from the provisions of the Schedule they will ensure that lower-paid workers do not have to bear the brunt of sacrifices which others may have to make.
The Amendment will assist the cause of the lower-paid worker and I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider it seriously.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: Is it possible to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the speech of the Under Secretary in Committee? This is where my hon. Friend is chasing shadows. The Under Secretary said:
12 per cent. of the entire agricultural industry is on this minimum rate. The other 88 per cent. are not getting the minimum— currently 11 guineas or slightly more. The other 88 per cent. are getting more than that." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 12th June, 1968; c. 752.]
We are dealing with a minimum. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was attacked by my hon. Friend and I am entitled to reply. Is he aware that the White Paper on which the Bill is based says that there can be above-ceiling increases for lower-paid workers under the criteria. He is chasing shadows in pursuing this point.

Mr. Park: That sounded more like a speech than an intervention. I would be taking up the time of the House if I were to chase all the shadows for which my hon. Friend has been responsible. Many agricultural workers whose wages may be a little above 11 guineas a week are, nevertheless, paid at considerably lower than average rate and can undoubtedly be classed among the less well paid members of the community.

Mr. Christopher Norwood: Would my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the question of the agricultural worker, we should look at some other wages council rates which fall well below £12 a week for a 42-hour working week?

Mr. Park: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I intend, shortly, to develop this point. All the evidence we have of wages council industries shows that workers in them are among the lowest paid members of the community. They secure wages increases less often, and, when secured, they are smaller increases than those of workers in other industries. Take the pay of women workers covered by the Catering Wages Council—

Mr. Lomas: On a point of order. We are talking about Clause 5, which is specifically related to agriculture.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Clause relates to deferment of wages regulation orders and agricultural wages orders.

Mr. Park: I was saying that women workers covered by the Catering Wages Council receive only £7 a week. The last pay increase that they had was in 1965. Male workers in agriculture have been mentioned as receiving 11 guineas a week. There are many other cases of a similar nature which I could cite. We must bear in mind that for such workers the basic rate of pay, minus deductions, represents the actual take home pay. Are the Government seriously maintaining that the only way in which they can make the incomes policy work is to subject the lower-paid workers to a standstill at a time when living costs are going up?
The Government may prefer to claim that their aim is not to hold back the lower-paid workers, but to hold back those on higher rates. I suggest that the Government's policy will not achieve this aim. We already have experience, during the operation of the 1966 and 1967 Acts, of what is achieved by a policy of statutory control. Taking the period October, 1966, to October, 1967, which includes the period of the freeze and of the nil norm, among the biggest increases in earnings have been in industries such as motor vehicle manufacturing, chemicals, and insulated wires and cables where wages are well above the average rate at the start.
The lowest increases in earnings have been in industries such as road passenger transport, laundry, and water supply, where wages have been below the average. The policy has not succeeded in assisting the lower-paid workers; it has imposed heavier burdens on them than on those higher up the scale.

Mr. Ron Ledger: Can my hon. Friend give any examples, under the old system of free-for-all, where the lower-paid workers have done better than the higher-paid workers, because we have come to the conclusion that it is the old free-for-all system which has perpetuated the lower-paid workers? This policy is meant to redress that situation.

Mr. Park: But this policy is having the effect which my hon. Friend has described of placing heavier burdens on the lower-paid workers' basic rates of pay than on workers in industries where the pay is higher. This point illustrates


that lower-paid workers and less well organised workers, far from gaining special advantages from the Government's policy, emerge as the chief casualties. That is why something should be done to provide such workers with measures of protection against the full effects of the statutory policy.
I commend this Amendment to my right hon. Friend. It is completely consistent with what she claims is her policy and should have no hesitation in accepting it. If my right hon. Friend is not willing to accept it, out of a feeling of the seriousness of the situation and the depth of my own conviction, I shall not hesitate to go into the Lobby with hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) enjoyed himself while moving the Amendment. He caused some hilarity, and it was borne in on me, after nearly 20 years' experience here, and many late sittings, that something special comes over our debates during the hour between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. It is the hour during which hon. Members seek to escape from compulsive, and indeed almost irresistible somnolence into a second wind, and an hour which always seems to lead to hilarity.
It is a pity that at this hour, when some hon. Members are in this mood, we should come to an Amendment which, for the first time, touches on what, in my judgment, is one of the most serious aspects of this Bill. This is the first opportunity that we have had of looking at the effect on the Bill and on the incomes policy of the introduction formally into that policy of millions of workers covered by wages councils and by the Agricultural Wages Board.
I very much regret, but I make no criticism about it, that we have not the opportunity of voting to eliminate those workers from this legislation. I should have been happier if Amendments in the names of my hon. Friends and myself to achieve that end had been selected. I could have voted for them much more cheerfully.
During an earlier discussion I said that one of the difficult features of this legislation is its escalation. The 1967 Act was tougher and wider than the 1966 Act, and this Bill—I said earlier arith-

metically, but, I think, truthfully, that it is a geometrical progression—is tougher and wider than the 1967 Act. It goes on for longer, the standstills are longer, it starts earlier and finishes later, and the penalties are more severe. In fact, the greatest difference between this Bill and the earlier legislation is that for the first time millions of workers—and I repeat that there are millions of workers, and I shall go on repeating it until my hon. Friend the Member for Hudders-field, West (Mr. Lomas) and others take the point—who are covered by wages councils and the Agricultural Wages Board are included.
In Committee, an Amendment was moved to delete the provisions under which these workers come into the Bill. The case for the Amendment was argued on the basis that since the Government claimed that their policy was designed to defend the lower-paid workers they ought to be left out of this legislation. The Government's reply was, "You are being a little too general. You are painting with a little too broad a brush. It is true that the wages councils cover a large number of workers who are very low paid, but not all of them are low paid. It is true that in agriculture there is a substantial number of workers who are low paid, but some are paid very much higher wages"—the point made just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Hud-dersfield, West—"and, that being so, you ought not to argue for the blanket omission of these workers because some of them are highly paid. It is right that their claims, like the claims of other workers, should be referred. Those who are low-paid will be looked after by the fact that unduly low paid is a criterion for permitting wage increases".
I think that everyone will agree that that sounds good. It sounds good to suggest that we ought to concern ourselves with low-paid workers, whether they are covered by agricultural councils or wages councils or any others, but it seems to me that this Amendment is the logical extension of that argument.
Here we are only talking about the very lowest-paid workers and I cannot conceive for the life of me on what basis the Government can refuse to accept this Amendment and put us on this side of the House in the agony of having to cast a vote about it.
2.45 a.m.
We are talking about men who put in a wage claim the effect of which, if their claim is granted, will leave them still with a wage of less than £12 a week. Will they engage in orgies of consumer spending on a wage of less than £12 a week which will rock the economy to its foundations? Does anyone really believe that the success of our economic policy is dependent on keeping wage earners on wages of £12 a week? Does my right hon. Friend believe that? Does anybody, except perhaps Pierre-Paul Schweitzer, believe that this country cannot recover its economic strength without many people being kept on wages below £12 a week? That is what we are talking about, and do not let us be mealy-mouthed or mince words about it.
Twelve pounds a week is less than some hon. Members spend on marginal luxuries. We are talking about people living on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West says there are not many agricultural workers who are on that level. This really is like the little girl who had a baby and who said, "It is only a little baby." There are still many thousands of them, and in the wages council there are millions of them, and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West, whether he will go to his constituency and tell people who are on £11 a week that if they put in a claim to bring their wage up to £12 a week they ought to go through all the apparatus of this Bill.

Mr. Lomas: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I apologise if I am under any misapprehension on agricultural wages. May I say to him that I agree that £12 a week is a low wage, but under the criteria in the Bill and in the White Paper surely these people are allowed to get through? I do not see what he is arguing about.

Mr. Mikardo: I will tell my hon. Friend what I am arguing about. He misread the Bill before, and now he has misunderstood the argument. It may well be that under the criteria the agricultural workers will come through, but I want to point out two things to my hon. Friend. The first is that they might come through in the end, but why should they have to hang around for 11 months? The second is, as my hon. Friend the

Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) said, what the Bill provides is that the rights given to other workers to backdate an agreed wage settlement are denied to these workers. Therefore, even if they might come through in the end they could lose several months of their increase from £11 8s. a week to £12 a week.
I should like my hon. Friend to talk to some of his lower-paid workers in the textile industry in Huddersfield—a section covered by the wage council—and seek to justify that. I wish him joy, so long as he does not ask me to support him in it.
We are talking about the hard, basic knuckle of this question—we are talking about people who, when they fall out of work, are not allowed to get their full social security entitlement under the minimum National Asistance scales because of the wages stop—because if they get their National Assistance scales which, by definition, are the minimum scales necessary to keep people going in health and decency, they are getting more than the wages they receive when they are in work.
Those are the people we are talking about, and all that the Amendment asks is that when people who are working for wages which, by definition of the Ministry of Social Security, are below the necessary to maintain them in health, put in a wage claim which will bring their wage up to the munificent sum of £12 a week they should not be mucked about for 11 months so as to see whether, under the criteria, they should get their money and, when they get it, should be debarred from having any retrospective settlement.
For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept the Amendment, even if they reject every other Amendment that has been put down on these many pages of the Notice Paper. While I was considering how far I should go in support of the Amendment a member of the Whips' Office came by and said, "You are going to support Enoch Powell." If that is to be the attitude, it helps me to make up by mind—if we are here talking about the mechanics of Parliamentary niceties and not about people living on wages below the minimum described by our own Government as the lowest necessary to keep people in decency and in health.
I apologise if I seem to be getting heated about this, but I care about it. I am a lucky man. I have a large income. That does not make me feel any the less for those who have not. There are many lucky men and women in this House, but that does not relieve us of the obligation of thinking about those less fortunate than us; it imposes on us more than ever the obligation to do so. I feel deeply about this. Thousands of my constituents will be affected by the Amendment.
I have a great regard for my right hon. Friend. She has been a friend of mine for many years and I hope that she will remain a friend for many years more. I beg her to think about this and not to put her hon. Friends in a position of torture about the Amendment. I cannot conceive why the Amendment cannot be accepted. I beg her to accept it, in her own interests. If she resists it nobody again will ever believe that the purpose of the incomes policy is to assist the lower-paid worker.
If, in resisting the Amendment, my right hon. Friend says, "We will put even the lowest-paid workers through the grinding machinery of the Bill in exactly the same way as if they were earning £5,000 a year," nobody will ever believe —I assure her that I shall take this view —her claim that one of the purposes of the Government's incomes policy is to protect the lowest-paid workers. I therefore see no case in logic why the Amendment should be resisted.

Mr. Hattersley: I have on many occasions debated prices and incomes in Parliament, almost invariably with or against the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and often those debates have been about the definition of a "lowest-paid worker". Invariably, I have refused to give a precise figure by which the Government judge what constitutes a lowest-paid worker, basically because I have believed that to be the sound thing to do, both intellectually and socially.
Despite that, I say tonight categorically that if there are hon. Members who believe that a man earning £12 a week for a basic week's work of, say, 40 hours should be regarded as one of the lowest-paid, and should be granted the exemptions under this policy for the

lowest paid, then certainly my right hon. Friend and I agree with them. This is the first time that we have attempted to put a figure to this category of people. Perhaps this figure is inadequate and it may be that figures above it should be included. In any event, I repeat that those who say, in connection with the Amendment, that a man earning £12 a week for a basic week's work should receive the exemptions that the policy allows, can be assured that there is no division between them and my right hon. Friend, who is an enthusiastic supporter of their point of view.

Mr. Norwood: My hon. Friend has agreed that a man earning £12 a week is lowly paid. Would he care to add that a woman earning that sum is equally lowly paid?

Mr. Hattersley: I would not care to add women, not only because we have already been reminded that this debate is not about equal pay, but because my right hon. Friend made a categorical statement about our progress towards equal pay which was so forthright, and which offered promises so precise, that some of my hon. Friends who had tabled an Amendment on the subject felt able to withdraw it. I trust that no hon. Member would suggest that my right hon. Friend's assurance was not adequate, because it was regarded as adequate by most of my hon. Friends earlier in the day.
I say for the third time that a man earning £12 for a working week seems to us to be within the category of the lowest paid. Nothing we seek to do in this policy would result in that sort of man being prevented from enjoying the exemptions for the lowest paid. However, that is not what the Amendment says. If it did say that we might have been voting for it. And if we were voting for it I suppose that the hon. Member for Oswestry would not have tabled it. The hon. Gentleman's speech was enjoyable and brilliant. His Amendment is equally clever because it is carefully calculated to include people on low basic rates who may have much more substantial take-home earnings.

Mr. Biffen: To anticipate the hon. Gentleman, he will recollect that I specifically said that I realised that the Amendment related to rates and that I did not


propose to deduce from that what would be the level of earnings applicable in this connection because I believed that that argument would be effectively adduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He should, therefore, be addressing this part of his argument to his hon. Friends and not to me.

3.0 a.m.

Mr. Hattersley: I am about to do that. Whatever else I am accusing the hon. Member of, I certainly am not accusing him of not understanding the implications of his Amendment. He knew very well that it referred to rates; and my hon. Friends have referred to earnings. Those of my hon. Friends who have had substantial experience in industry, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), know perfectly well that to talk about basic rates is not to talk about what a man takes home. I take one random example, a wages council covering 17,000 employees where the basic rate for men is well below £12 a week. In fact, it is £9 0s. l0d.—a derisory rate my hon. Friends would say, and I would agree—but in that industry the average wage for a 41-hour week is £17.
When calculations are made of where the lowest paid are to be found they must be real calculations based on earnings rather than on rates. Earnings are a more legitimate test of what a man is receiving, what his income is. In case the House should feel that the example I gave was not a random one, I point out that in all the wages councils industries there is virtually no category where the basic rate is not less than £12 a week. Equally, there is virtually no category where earnings are not 50 per cent. above the rate.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

Mr. David Winnick: Mr. David Winnick (Croydon, South) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Undersecretary must decide to whom he is giving way.

Mr. Hattersley: I am giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick).

Mr. Winnick: Although these Amendments are put forward by Conservative hon. Members for propaganda purposes, does not my hon. Friend agree that if

workers on £12 a week basic rate are taking home much more, that is because of excessive overtime working?

Mr. Hattersley: Not necessarily. The simple example, which I do not pretend was of a large wage, was £17 for a 41-hour week. I have not chosen these figures because they represent wages inflated by vast amounts of overtime pay. They often represent wages which begin with a basic pay to which is added bonus and other payments.

Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend say what percentage of workers covered by wages councils receive above basic rates laid down by wages councils?

Mr. Hattersley: That is very difficult to give in terms of numbers. I am not quoting erstwhile secret information. The annexe to the Donovan Report says that the average earnings of every employee in the industry concerned is substantially more than the basic minimum. While we insist that our policy is to give this special exemption for the lowest paid, we must have the opportunity of discovering where the lowest paid are likely to be found. By applying a rule as arbitrary as that advocated by the hon. Member for Oswestry, we may be exempting from the policy people whose real earnings do not qualify for the description, lowest paid.
Those are the technicalities of the position. I shall say something about the emotional issue, because I do not reject the idea that this is a matter which should be looked at with sincerity. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) said that this issue was a test of the sincerity of my right hon. Friend and of the Government as a whole. It is the misfortune of members of the Government concerned with incomes policy that they are constantly judged according to criteria chosen by their critics.
I ask him to consider another criterion of our sincerity—that is, our record concerning wages council industries. I offer only two examples. The first is that quoted in Committee, not of a wages council, but of the Agricultural Wages Board. The Agricultural Workers' Union went to pains to point out that under the prices and incomes policy and the lowest-paid description, the agricultural worker had done very well.
My other example is that of the retail drapery wages council, which was submitted to the Prices and Incomes Board as a potential category of lowest-paid workers. I remind my hon. Friend that the Board found that the workers in the retail drapery industry were on the margins of the lowest paid and felt, therefore, that the wage increase should, perhaps, not go ahead. The Government's reaction was to feel that they should be rather more liberal, let us say, rather more generous and forthcoming, than the judgment of the Board. They believed those people to be genuinely lowest paid and let their increases go ahead.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak): My hon. Friend quotes the journal of the Agricultural Workers' Union and the commendation which, he claims, that union has given to the prices and incomes policy. Will he, therefore, say why, for the first time, that union has gone on record at its biennial conference in opposition to the prices and incomes policy?

Mr. Hattersley: I must correct my hon. Friend. I was not claiming that the agricultural workers said that. I was stating that their union said it. I do not comment on what pressures, industrial and political, resulted in their union making its decision. I say as a statement of fact that their journal says that they are satisfied with the policy as operated last year.
I ask my hon. Friends to consider our record in this matter and our intention that where the lowest-paid are to be found they should be exempted from the policy. I ask them to consider the Government's claim that we have not simply a right, but an obligation, to make sure that the exemptions for the lowest paid go to the genuine lowest paid and to reject the Amendment, not only because of the intentions of, and the way it was moved by, the hon. Member for Oswestry, but because of the implications of the preservation of the free market economy, which appeals to few of us on this side, and to reject it because they know that the Government choose only to make a more accurate diagnosis of where lowest-paid workers are, so that the benefits which the policy certainly offers them by way of exemption should

continue to be theirs, as they have been during the last two years.

Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) referred to the subject of our debate on the Amendment as an example of the escalation which we see in the Bill and to the Amendment as an attempt at least to limit that escalation. When considering the Amendment, hon. Members should bear in mind the point of escalation and how each year we have this sort of legislation, which covers a wider field and does so with more severe powers.
The rest of the Bill tends merely, concerning wages at least, to lengthen the period of delay. The Clause extends control to an entirely new sector, namely, workers covered by wages council orders and orders of the Agricultural Wages Board. The Amendment is an attempt, since it is no longer possible at this stage to reject the escalation outright, at least to limit that escalation. That is the basis on which we wish it to be considered.
Whenever we discuss wages councils, I cannot help remembering—because at the time I was in the position now occupied by the Under-Secretary—the violent reaction of the Labour Party, then in opposition, when the Conservative Government so much as dared to suggest to the chairmen of wages councils that in coming to their decisions and helping their councils to reach a decision the overall public and national interest should enter into their minds.
Even that suggestion was met with the most violent opposition and complaint from the Labour Party when it was in opposition. Yet tonight the Government wish to force through not only control over the decisions of wages councils, but also a decision against an Amendment which seeks to limit that power by a relatively small amount. This, I am sorry to say, must either be hypocrisy or the adoption of control for control's sake.
What are wages councils for? By very definition, they are concerned with lower-paid workers—workers who, through lack of union organisation or employer organisation or for other reasons, need special protection. Also by definition, wages councils include, not only representatives of employers and workers, but also independent elements,


which are well able to weigh the balance and which could be made in the way that we wished to make them ten years ago, when the independent element was at least asked to take into account the overall purpose, the overall national interest, and certainly the overall requirements of a voluntary incomes policy. That is all we asked for.
I cannot help recalling, too, that there is a very big difference between the way the Government in the Bill seek to treat statutory wage-fixing bodies and the way in which they treat statutory price-fixing bodies. Statutory price-fixing bodies are specifically exempt from control under the prices and incomes policy. There is a special Clause in the Bill which does that. The full rigour of the control is to be applied to statutory wage-fixing bodies. As we discovered in Committee, the full rigour of the control is such that powers written into the Bill will allow the Government to delay wage increases granted under wages council and Agricultural Wages Board Orders for longer than they can be delayed for any other class of worker. Surely if the Government will not agree to exclude altogether from the statutory power of their incomes policy those who have their earnings fixed by wage regulations of that kind, they should at least exclude them to the very limited extent we ask for.
We are told over and over again that the policy is meant to help the lowest-paid workers. We heard from the Secretary of State today that she means to initiate negotiations immediately to bring into play over the next seven years equal pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said, the examination of wages council orders shows more clearly than anything else—more clearly than, perhaps, any other concrete evidence on which we can lay our hands —that there is both inequality of pay between men and women workers and inequality in the lower brackets. In other words, it is in this field where the first move needs to be made, if the right hon. Lady means at all what she says, in the direction in which, however wisely or unwisely, she made her promise this afternoon and also where the lowest-paid men workers exist.

Mr. Winnick: Railwaymen tend to come into the category with which we are dealing here. During the last few days, I have noticed a complete lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Opposition for the railwaymen's case in the claim which they are now pursuing. Why this inconsistency? Why the lack of support for the railwaymen, and now the shedding of tears for workers supposed to be affected by wages councils?

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Carr: I do not suppose, Mr. Speaker, that you would either wish or allow me to reply to that intervention. We are opposed to a statutory incomes policy, whatever the category of income or worker to which it is applied. In that we are completely consistent.
All we are able to do in this debate is try to limit the degree of statutory power and compulsion in one limited sector. We ask that Orders affecting wage rates of less than £12 a week should be excluded from the statutory powers of the incomes policy. As I said, there would be nothing to stop the Government saying, if they really believe in a voluntary incomes policy, that these bodies, which have independent chairmen and members, should have regard to the overall needs of the country and of the incomes policy.
To pretend to the House that it is necessary to have this panoply of statutory power backed by penal sanctions for Orders affecting wage rates of less than £12 a week is evidence either of hypocrisy—which I hope and believe it is not—or that the Government have gone mad on control and want control for control's sake.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am concerned about the effect of the Clause on the agricultural worker and his wages and, in the long run, on agriculture as a whole. What will be the effect of the Government's efforts to control agricultural wages still further and to delay and limit increases? Since the last war, over 300,000 men have left the industry. I remind the House of the excellent report which the National Union of Agricultural Workers produced, called "Farming for the Future", in which the union's aims were stated as being to seek proper wages and conditions for its members and to secure for those employed on


the land the same wages and conditions as are enjoyed by industrial workers.
The Bill works against those aims, and for that reason I support the Amendment. The Clause will aggravate an already serious situation. More men will leave the land. This process cannot be allowed to go on. We cannot afford it. It will have a serious effect on the expansion of agriculture. In the latest Report of the "Little Neddy" for agriculture, we are clearly told:
Manpower is likely to continue to decline at least as fast as in the recent past. The expansion may not be obtainable in full if the decline is at the high rates forecast.
In other words—[Interruption.]—manpower is needed, but manpower will continue to decline further if we accept Clause.5 in its present form.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have more than one debate at a time.

Mr. Mills: The decline must be halted. It can be halted only by better wages and conditions. The Clause acts against what we are trying to do. This decline must be slowed down, and a fair and proper wage is the only way to do it. That is why I oppose the Clause and support the Amendment. I hope that the Minister will at least consider this very carefully. If we want agriculture to play the part it can and should play we must have the necessary workers, and nothing must be put in their way.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I invite the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and his hon. Friends to conduct their running battle with the Whips outside the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I had already asked for one debate at one time in the Chamber.

Mr. Mills: My point is serious and valid. We must decide what we want. If we want agriculture to play its part we must have the workers. Nothing must prevent their having a fair return for the work they do.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: It is not very often that I have an opportunity to congratulate an hon. Member opposite on the content of his speech, but I have no hesitation in congratulating the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills).
There is nothing in the principle of the Amendment—I emphasise the word "principle"—that my right hon. Friend cannot accept. It clearly accords with the need to assist the lower-paid workers, which is one of the criteria of the policy on awards. The Minister has laid down that claims which try to help raise the living standards of lower-paid workers will be met.
Like the hon. Member for Torrington, I wish to refer to agricultural workers. No one would argue that wages in agriculture have not been outstripped by wages in manufacturing industry. No one would argue with my general assertion that the average take-home pay of an agricultural worker is about 30 per cent. less than that of his counterpart in manufacturing industry, and that on average he works longer hours—an average of three hours a week—more than his fellow worker in manufacturing industry.
I want to quote from the Ministry of Labour Gazette, and in doing so I shall perhaps give some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), who rightly said that the awards are minimum sums and that certain workers in agriculture, as in all industries covered by the awards, take home sums in excess of the minimum.
In January, 1967, the average take-home pay of all adult male workers in manufacturing industry was £20 5s. For agricultural workers it was £14 3s. The Minister may argue that I am not being completely fair because workers in manufacturing do not receive rewards in kind to anything like the same extent as agricultural workers. I am sure that this was true in the past, but it is not the situation today. The Ministry of Labour Gazette show that a mere 5·4 per cent. of workers in agriculture received any increase in kind last year.
At the last biennial conference of the National Union of Agricultural Workers on 5th May, 1968, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the Government were
conscious of the claims of the lower paid section of the community".
This sentiment has been echoed on both sides of the House. He went on to boast that during the standstill of 1966 the agricultural workers were given a "princely"


increase—6s. He said that this award was honoured; there was no attempt to impose a standstill. In February, 1968, a further award was given which I draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West—15s. These are not large sums. Yet the Government, in the Bill, are taking powers to restrict or defer payment of them. I hope that no hon. Member suggests that increases of 6s. and 15s. are inflationary.
It is hardly surprising that for the first time the N.U.A.W. has gone on record in opposition to the Government's prices and incomes policy. I understand that in Committee my hon. Friend claimed that the union was well satisfied with the results of the policy. I can well understand that it is not well satisfied, because the position of agricultural workers relative to that of workers in manufacturing industry has not altered one iota over the period 1966–67.
The second justification which my right hon. Friend the First Secretary gives for allowing awards in excess of her norm is in terms of productivity, to which the Prime Minister referred with some pride on 5th May. He drew attention to the fact that 10 years ago there were 750,000 workers in the industry and that that figure had dropped to 500,000. He went on to say:

"In recent years the growing output per head has been more than twice that of the economy as a whole".

On grounds of productivity, it is appropriate that the references to the Agricultural Wages Council should be deleted from the Bill.

I refer to the pertinent point made by the hon. Member for Torrington. He drew attention to the serious problems which the industry is experiencing because of the drift of workers from it. There is no doubt that workers are being replaced by machinery, and that productivity is increasing, but the opinion of the N.F.U. and of many farmers to whom I have talked is that this drift has not been compensated by mechanisation Therefore, the industry is facing problems.

I wish to put two questions to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. Why were not these powers taken in the legislation introduced in 1966 and 1967 and why has it been felt necessary to take them now? Secondly, would she have an Amendment moved in another place to accept the principle of a minimum rate of earnings?

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes, 215, Noes 236.

Division No. 251.]
AYES
[3.30 a.m. 


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Eyre, Reginald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campbell, Gordon
Farr, John


Astor, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fletcher-Cooks, Charles


Awdry, Daniel
Charnon, H. P. G.
Fortescue, Tim


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Foster, Sir John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Clark, Henry
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Balniel, Lord
Clegg, Walter
Gibson-Watt, David


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bell, Ronald
Cordle, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Corfieid, F. V.
Goodhart, Philip


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Costain, A. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Gower, Raymond


Biffen, John
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Crowder, F. P.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gresham Cooke, R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Dalteith, Earl of
Grieve, Percy


Blaker, Peter
Dance, James
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Gurden, Harold


Body, Richard
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Digby, Simon Wingfieid
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)


Braine, Bernard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brewis, John
Doughty, Charles
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Drayson, G. B.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hastings, Stephen


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eden, Sir John
Heseltine, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Higgins, Terence L.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Elliott, R.W.W (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Hiley, Joseph


Bullus, Sir Eric
Emery, Peter
Hill,J.E.B.


Burden, F. A.
Errington, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip




Hordern, Peter
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Hornby, Richard
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Royle, Anthony


Hunt, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald


Iremonger, T. L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott, Nicholas


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Montgomery, Fergus
Scott-Hopkins, James


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
More, Jasper
Sharpies, Richard


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Silvester, Frederick


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Jopling, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Joseph, Rt, Hn. Sir Keith
Neave, Airey
Speed, Keith


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stainton, Keith


Kerby, Cant. Henry
Nott, John
Stodart, Anthony


Kershaw, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Kimball, Marcus
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Kirk, Peter
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Kitson, Timothy
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Temple, John M.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tilney, John


Lane, David
Park, Trevor
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Langtord-Holt, Sir John
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peel, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Percival, Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Peyton, John
Walker Peter (Worcester)


Longden, Gilbert
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wall, Patrock


Lobbock, Eric
Pink, R. Bonner
Walters, Dennis


MacArthur, Ian
Pounder, Rafton
Webster, David


Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp;Crom'ty)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wells, Jihn (Maidstone)


Maclean, Sir Firzory
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn William


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Prior, J. M. L.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


MacMaster, Stanley
Pym, Francis
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Macmillan, Maurice Farnham)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maddan, Martin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Maginnis, John E.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Marten, Neil
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Maude, Angus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wylie, N. R.


Maudling, Fit. Hn. Reginald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Younger, Hn. George


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Hector Monro and



Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Crawshaw, Richard
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Albu, Austen
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Alldritt, Walter
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Griffiths, Eddie


Allen, Scholefield
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamling, William


Archer, Peter
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hannan, William


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Harper, Joseph


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffroy
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Barnes, Michael
Dell, Edmund
Haseldine, Norman


Barnett, Joel
Dempsey, James
Hattersley, Roy


Bence, Cyril
Dewar, Donald 
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dobson, Ray
Henig, Stanley


Binns, John
Doig, Peter 
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Bishop, E. S.
Dunn, James A.
Hilton, W. S.


Blackburn, F.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Horner, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Eadie, Alex
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Boston, Terence
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Boyden, James
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bradley, Tom
Ellis, John
Howie, W.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
English, Michael
Hoy, James


Brooks, Edwin
Ennals, David
Huckfield, Leslie


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ensor, David
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Fernyhough, E.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Foley, Maurice
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp; St. P'cras, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Ford, Ben
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Forrester, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fowler, Gerry
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)


Cant, R. B.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carmichael, Neil
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gardner, Tony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Garrett, W. E.
Judd, Frank


Coe, Denis
Ginsburg, David
Kenyon, Clifford


Coleman, Donald
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Conlan, Bernard
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lawson, George


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ledger, Ron







Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Moyle, Roland
Skeffington, Arthur


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Slater, Joseph


Lomas, Kenneth
Murray, Albert
Small, William


Loughlin, Charles
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Snow, Julian


Luard, Evan
Ogden, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
O'Malley, Brian
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Oram, Albert E.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn, John


Mabon, Or. J. Dickson
Oswald, Thomas
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


McBride, Neil
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Swingler, Stephen


McCann, John
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Taverne, Dick


MacColl, James
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


MacDermot, Niall
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Tinn, James


Macdonald, A. H.
Pavitt, Laurence
Urwin, T. W.


McGuire, Michael
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Varley, Eric G.


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Pentland, Norman
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Wallace, George


Mackie, John
Prentice Ht Hn R. F
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; amp;Radnor)


Maclennan, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Wellbeloved, James


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Probert, Arthur
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Randall, Harry
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rees, Merlyn
Whitlock, William


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Richard, Ivor
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Manuel, Archie
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Marquand, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Mayhew, Christopher
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roebuck, Roy
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Millan, Bruce
Rose, Paul
Winnick, David


Miller. Dr. M. S.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Woof, Robert


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Yates, Victor


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)



Molloy, William
Shcidon, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Moonman, Eric
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Mr. Alan Fitch.

Sir E. Brown: I beg to move Amendment 51, in page 4, line 36, at end insert
'but in any event not later than 11th August 1969'.
I will not repeat all the arguments we have had on Amendment No. 49, but simply say that it was in expectation of that Amendment being defeated that this was tabled, to give the Government an opportunity to carry out their expressed intention to assist these classes of workers. They have spoken of phasing out and phasing in and we can give them the opportunity to phase out this section of the community, to receive its priorities not later than 11th August, 1969.
The Government have said that they have an interest in these two classes of workers and we are putting the Government to the test of seeing if they can be honest in their purpose. If not, I ask my hon. Friends to press this Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Harold Walker: This Amendment is similar to one discussed with a number of others in Committee and covers again the ground fully tilled my by right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary on Second Reading and in Committee, at length and exhaustively. They showed clearly why we need the powers in the Clause and the Bill up to the end of 1969, the period recognised by the Government as critical, during which it is essential that the competitive advantage gained by devaluation is not eroded. It was said by the Chancellor in his Budget speech that the full period in the Bill is necessary to achieve the turn round in the balance of payments and to come into surplus in 1969. It is for that reason that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes, 215, Noes 237.

Division No. 251.]
AYES
[3.45 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Balniel, Lord


Astor, John
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Batsford, Brian




Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cresham Cooke, R.
Nott, John


Bell, Ronald
Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bennett, Or. Reginald (Got. &amp; Fhm)
Gurden, Harold
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Brian (Maklon)
Peel, John


Blaker, Peter
Harrison, Col. S r Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hastings, Stephen
Peyton, John


Body, Richard
Heseltine, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bossom, Sir Clive
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hiley, Joseph
Pounder, Rafton


Braine, Bernard
Hill, J. E. B.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Prior, J. M. L.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Francis


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bryan, Paul
Hunt, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bullus, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Burden F. A.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Campbell, B. (Oldham W.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Campbell, Cordon
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cary, Sir Robert
Jopling, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Channon, H. P. G.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Chichester-clark, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Boyle, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Scott, Nicholas


Cooper-Key Sir Neill
Kirk, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cordle, John
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Costain, A. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Silvester, Frederick


Crosthwaite-Eyre Sir Oliver
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Crowder, F. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stodart, Anthony


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lubbock, Eric
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dcan, Paul (Somerset, N.)
MacArthur, lan
Tapsell, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Macleod Rt. Hn. Iain
Temple, John M.


Doughty, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Tilney, John


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eden Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marten, Neil
Vickers, Dame Joan


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maude, Angus
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Emery, Peter
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Wall, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
Mawby, Ray
Walters, Dennis


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hystop, R. J.
Webster, David


Fisher, Nigel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Foster, Sir John
Miscampbell, Norman
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, C.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodnutt, Mark


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
More, Jasper
Worsley, Marcus


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wylie, N. R.


Goodhart, Philip
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhew, Victor
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Bernard Weatherill




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bence, Cyril
Brooks, Edwin


Albu, Austen
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Alldritt, Walter
Binns, John
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)


Allen, Scholefield
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)


Anderson, Donald
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Archer, Peter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Armstrong, Ernest
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Buchan, Norman


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Boston, Terence
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyden, James
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Barnes, Michael
Bradley, Tom
Cant, R. B.


Barnett, Joel
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Carmichael, Neil







Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Park, Trevor


Coe, Denis
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Coleman, Donald
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, Norman


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dalyell Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Judd, Frank
Randall, Harry


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, Ifor(Gower)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Richard, Ivor


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dell Edmund
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dobson, Ray
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Doig, Peter
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow, E.)


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dunnet, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Roebuck, Roy


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Loughlin, Charles
Rose, Paul


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Luard, Ean
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Eadie, Ales
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)



Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sheldon, Robert


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ellis, John
McCann, John
Short,Mrs.Renée(Whampton,N.E.)


English, Michael
MacColl, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ennals, David
MacDermot, Niall
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ensor, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McGuire, Michael
Skeffington, Arthur


Fernyhough, E.
Mckay, Mrs. Margaret
Slater, Joseph


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Small, William


Foley, Maurice
Mackie, John
Snow, Julian


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Fowler, Gerry
McNamara, J. Kevin
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Swingler, Stephen


Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Taverne, Dick


Gardner, Tony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Tinn, James


Ginsburg, David

Urwin, T. W.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Manuel, Archie
varley, Eric G.



Marks, Kenneth



Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marquand, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Watkins, David (Consett)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Griffiths, Eddie
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller. Dr. M. S.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hamling, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
white, Mrs. Eirene


Hannan, william
Mitchell, R.C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Whitlock, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moonman, Eric
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Haseldine, Norman
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Henig, Stanley
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Moyle, Roland
Willis Rt. Hn. George


Hilton, W. S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Albert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winnick, David


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Ogden, Eric
Woof, Robert


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Malley, Brian
Yates, Victor


Howie, W.
Oram, Albert E.



Hoy, James
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Mr. J. D. Concanoon.

Clause 6

RESTRICTION ON ORDINARY DIVIDENDS, AND RELATED RESTRICTIONS

Mr. Speaker: We come now to the group of Amendments which I have changed, as the House will remember. We are debating Amendment No. 55, and with it we are taking Amendments Nos. 60, 73, 141. 142 and 143.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I beg to move Amendment No. 55. in page 4, line 41, leave out from ' order ' to ' prohibit' in line 42.
The object of this Amendment, and the series of Amendments being discussed with it, is to delete the power of the Treasury to make directions affecting the distribution of dividends by


companies. This appears in Clause 6(1), which provides that
Subject to the provisions of this section, the Treasury may by order applying to any description of companies specified in the directions, prohibit the companies …
We object to the Treasury being given power by direction to effect that form of prohibition, and ask why there should be this distinction in the powers given by order and by direction. What is the reason for giving the power to direct, which is subject to no Parliamentary control, in a matter of this importance?
In Committee, we pressed the Undersecretary on this point to find out the reason for it, and his reply, in column 914, was interesting. He first said:
That means that directions, and directions alone, can be made limiting the distribution of single companies which are named in the Order. If the Government seek to do more—
At that point he was interrupted, but he went on:
Single companies named in the direction can be covered in this way and, in a sense, the problem of definition does not exist. The problems of definition arise when one seeks to make an Order covering a group of companies …".
He later continued:
Then the Order procedure is obligatory, and the problems of definition become acute. There is the distinction. Single companies— directions; more than one company—Orders. That is the clear result of what is provided in Clause 6(1).
The Under-Secretary was pressed further on that, and in column 915 he said:
An Order may include an individual company, and can be allowed to do so, but it can also cover a great deal more. A direction can cover only an individual company, and cannot cover any more.
I cannot follow that distinction between an Order applying to a group of companies, and a direction applying to a single company, in the Clause. The Clause says:
the Treasury may by order applying to any description of companies specified in the order, or by directions applying to any companies specified in the directions …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 17th June, 1968, c. 914–15.]
4.0 a.m.
Orders and directions both apply to companies. There is no distinction justifying the assertion that directions apply to a single company and Orders to groups of companies. There is a great difference

in the procedure that applies. The procedure for Orders are defined in Clause 7(4), which provides that
Any order or regulations of the Treasury …shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
That is the Parliamentary protection which is offered in the case of an order. That is the minimum safeguard we consider acceptable in legislation giving such power to the Government, whereas in the case of directions, which are referred to in subsection (5), there is merely the requirement to publiish them in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes.
A direction is purely a Ministerial executive function. There is no Parliamentary control over it. We attach some importance to this because the consequences of Orders or directions can be grave. They can affect the whole dividend pattern of companies for a long period. The Minister is put in a position completely to freeze the ability of companies to raise new capital. This, and various restrictions which are contained in later Clauses, can be dealt with by directions—by the exercise of the ministerial executive function—with no parliamentary control.
The Government have never displayed great affection for the City, or its institutions, or for industrial management or capital, but I cannot believe their lack of affection is such that they feel that the dominating control of those functions should be removed from any Parliamentary supervision. Much of our economy depends on the delicate balance of finance and it can be thrown out of balance by decisions made by a Ministerial executive act over which Parliament has no control.
It may be asked why we are raising the question of directions as opposed to Orders purely in respect of dividends. It will be noted that Amendments were tabled to prevent the direction procedure being used in the case of wage awards and settlements and also in the case of prices. Those Amendments were discussed in Committee and voted on, and they were not selected for debate on Report. Nevertheless, we showed then and we show now the same concern for the control of Parliament over the preference for Orders as opposed to directions


in respect of wage awards and settlements as we show in the case of dividends.
The Amendment places a rigid control on dividends, and Parliament should not surrender its right to consider any Orders which are made. The Amendment is reasonable and fair, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Hattersley: It is important to remember at the outset of these groups of Amendments on dividend restraint that the degree of co-operation which the Government have already received from industry makes it unlikely that Orders and directions will be made under these provisions. I say that not as an alibi for what hon. Gentlemen opposite may regard as shortcomings in the Bill, but because it is important to acknowledge the amount of co-operation and assistance which the Government have received. That must influence our thinking on the Amendment.
To answer the two points made by the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman), there is, first, no doubt that the distinction between Orders and directions is a distinction between groups of companies, defined in a variety of ways, and individual companies. The second to fourth lines of the provision make that clear. The Government have asked for power to make directions in individual cases for no sinister reason. They want this power because there will be times when we need to make directions with speed on a company which may, by a variety of devices, declare some sort of interim dividend which will, in itself or in conjunction with other interim dividends, breach the ceiling. We would want, to preserve the policy, to make the limitation apply with all the speed that a direction would make possible.
One can justify that type of action in the special terms which cover dividend restraint. In asking for dividend restraint, I described in Committee the arithmetical calculation which determines whether or not dividend restraint is within the policy, and we are making a precise statement of our intention. Other forms of limitation —in price, earnings and even in rents— are subject to subjective conclusions and a variety of analyses, investigations and descriptions which are appropriate when

the judgment is made for continuous Parliamentary debate. In this sector, however, we are announcing a simple formula for what our dividend restraint policy should be; and once we have asked for and obtained parliamentary approval for that, it is reasonable for us to apply it in individual cases, which is all that the directions enable us to do.

Sir J. Foster: The hon. Gentleman does not answer our objection by saying that he wants speed. In any event, he could obtain almost equal speed by an Order in Council, which is subject to the annulment procedure and which, once issued, is valid. If it were decided at 10 a.m. to put a stop on a company, a meeting of the Privy Council could be arranged quickly and an Order in Council obtained. This would be just as speedy as the proposed direction, bearing in mind the undesirable constitutional point that a direction is not subject to the annulment procedure of the House and is, therefore, a power which should be used sparingly.
It seems a breach of the constitutional niceties for the Government to be able to specify in directions a number of companies, grouping them together. The Government must not put a description to them, although they can specify companies A to Z in the directions. However, if they refer to companies engaged in, say, the footwear industry, they must proceed by way of an Order in Council. There are exceptions and qualifications to the dividend policy, and it is not always just an arithmetical calculation.
If the hon. Gentleman is giving the assurance that a direction will be applied only in a case where a company breaks the arithmetical calculation—there are no other considerations and the company has not put up a case—that would make it a little better, but it would not get rid of our main objection that it is very undesirable to give a Government power to legislate by decree. The Labour Party, throughout its history, has objected to this, except, perhaps, for Sir Stafford Cripps, who was in favour of legislation for the whole of government by decree.
The Government could issue a decree, pick on a company and say that it had broken the dividends limitation. An Order, which would be the alternative


procedure, would apply to a description of companies. The argument appears to be, why bother to put it in an Order? Just slam it on the footwear industry. For these reasons we think that the Government should accept this Amendment on good constitutional grounds.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 4, line 42, leave out 'declaring' and insert 'paying'.
This Amendment would have the effect of making the act which is illegal not the declaration of a dividend which is too great, but the paying of it. There are very good reasons why this should be done, although I concede at once that the point is not one of enormous significance.
First, I draw a comparison between increases in wages or pay and increases in dividends. The 1966 Prices and Incomes Act makes clear that the offence in relation to incomes is to implement the award. If one says, "I have made an agreement with my men to pay them 10 per cent. more", even though it may be a legally binding agreement, the implementation is an offence, not the declaration that one has made the agreement.
Later in the 1966 Act there is a reference to dividends, but it is in no sense such a rigorous control as is proposed for dividends where the operative part of the precise powers put into Section 12, the decision to recommend a dividend. It goes on to say:
where the directors decide to recommend a dividend to be declared by the company in general meeting that decision, and not the declaration of the dividend in general meeting, shall be a decision for the purposes of this section.
The question is: at what moment is the company committed and at what moment should the control be applied when a company is definitely contemplating a dividend increase which offends against the Treasury's whims, or arithmetic as the hon. Gentleman called it? Of course, this is a pure whim because for most companies, whether it is 3½ per cent. more or less is not a matter of arithmetic, but one of enormous commercial importance. To relate it to the arbitrary figure of 3½ per cent. is wrong.
4.15 a.m.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary argued that the correct moment for deciding whether a dividend was wrong should be the declaration. He said that there were three steps: the taking of the decision, declaration, and, finally, payment. He said that the most clear-cut of those three steps was the declaration. That is a change from the 1966 Act, which makes it clear that the decision, and not the declaration, was the offence. We therefore have a shift from the earlier legislation. We seek to make the distribution the culpable act.
By far the most precise act is the payment of the dividend. There are all sorts of companies—close companies, private companies or one-man companies—which may not make, or may not need to make, a declaration. I am no expert on company law, but clearly the most easily identifiable and concise act in all this is the payment of the money, just as was a wage increase the concise and obvious point in the whole process is when the money is paid in increased wages. It therefore seems to me to be essential that the discipline should be exercised at that point.
The Under-Secretary advanced the argument at an earlier stage that it would be wrong to allow a company to get into a situation that it was liable to the policy although it was legally bound to pay the higher dividend which it had declared. That is not a watertight argument, because any board of directors which got into that jam could justifiably be fined under the Bill—and good luck, too, because it would be stupid of a director to get himself into that position. Indeed, any director who gets himself into a position where he has committed fraud or any other offence is liable to be prosecuted. That is proper. The right remedy is for the shareholders to change the directors if that is how they behave. Therefore, the Under-Secretary's argument falls.
Why have the Government settled on control at the declaration stage? Why have we abandoned both the first Act's stage of decision-taking and the standard stage of payment in the whole of the incomes legislation? I can only assume that that is the point when the apparent control of dividends exercises the maximum impact on the public. The moment


when the so-called furious worker waxes wrath at that announcement of a bumper dividend by a company is when it is declared. I suppose that the Government want to be able to assure people that all dividends which are declared are within the scope of the policy.
On later Amendments there will be ample opportunity to expose the nonsense that this all is, but is that the reason why the Under-Secretary has chosen the moment of declaration? This clearly has its difficulties. In some senses, it makes it easier to circumvent the control. The explanation must present reasons, because the time, if any, when a worker takes cognisance of an increased dividend is the moment of declaration. At that stage, the Government want to link the control policy to the declaration. Whatever it is, it is not a convincing reason. It would be far wiser to retain payment of the dividend as the determining factor.

Mr. John Smith: I do not enjoy speaking about any part of the Bill. I disapprove of it in toto. My party has said that it will repeal it. Therefore, one would imagine that 4.20 in the morning is a poor time to start speaking about it. Nor have I any wish to improve the Bill. I would much sooner that it remained bad and failed. However, in this case what is proposed will damage the economy as well as the Government's reputation. For that reason, I want to say a few words.
What the Government are after here is to prevent the payment of dividends above a certain amount. I can well understand that to link the control to declaration is much better public relations from the Government's point of view. They then shift the odium on to the company. They conceal from the public the amount of dividend which the company might have paid. There then does not appear to be any Government interference with individual decisions of companies. What is declared is paid.
There are two points here. It is unsafe to link this restriction to the declaration of dividends. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows, there are many steps between the declaration of a dividend and its payment. Its pay-

ment is a final visible act. Either it has taken place or not. It is not outside the bounds of possibility that ways will be found of paying dividends without declaring them.
The second point is that this policy of dividend restraint is bound to introduce a distortion into the capital market. It is bound to mean that companies which need money and which can make the best use of it are placed in no better position for raising it than companies which do not particularly need it and which cannot make the best use of it. If this policy is to continue—I understand that, as we shall hear on a subsequent Amendment, it conceivably could affect dividends for four or five years—it will affect the ability of the right companies to raise money. Unless what I shall suggest is introduced, cash will pile up in companies which cannot use it at all, let alone profitably, as happened after the last war, leading to the growth of takeover bids.
It would be much better to let companies indicate their prosperity and success, their growth, and their future, by declaring the dividend which they would wish to pay, and then limiting by orders the amount which they can pay. In that way the market would have an indication, during this gloomy period, of how companies were doing and it would be able to assess their prospects, and those companies which were doing well would, as we all desire, be able to raise money more cheaply than those which were not doing well.
For these two reasons, I think that it would be sensible to alter the amount on which the control is applied from the declaration of the dividend to the paying of the dividend.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) made a point on which I cannot resist comment even at this hour. He said that perhaps the Government chose this point at which to exercise the restraint because it was the sensible one from the point of view of public relations. If it is right, as his hon. Friends told us constantly in Committee and may well repeat before this sitting is over, that the only object of a dividend restraint policy is to give some sort of encouragement to some of my hon. Friends below


the Gangway and to people who will be subject to wage restraint, I can think of no better way of achieving that end than allowing companies to declare what their dividend might be and then insisting that it be reduced, thus drawing a distinction between what companies would like to do and what they are allowed to do by the Government.
In fact, our intention is much less sinister and more practical than that. We have chosen this point as the one at which restraint on dividends should fall for this reason. Declaration is the point at which a company creates a debt to its shareholders. It would be manifestly wrong were we to allow a company first to enter into a legal obligation by declaring a dividend, thus putting itself under a compulsion to pay, and then insert on top of that a second legal compulsion operating in the other direction. Hon. Gentlemen shake their heads, but I am assured that, once a declaration has been made, either for an interim dividend or for a final dividend, confirmed by the company meeting, the obligation exists.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)rose —

Mr. Hattersley: I am assured only that hon. Gentlemen are wrong when they say that some companies can avoid declaration before payment of dividend. If a final payment were made without a declaration, it would be an illegal payment.

Mr. John Smith: It is clear both from his reply now and from what he said in the Standing Committee that the hon. Gentleman is somewhat confused on this question. The legal obligation starts at the annual general meeting. That meeting can reduce a dividend. Directors may declare a final dividend, they put it to the annual meeting, and the shareholders can reduce it. How, therefore, can a company incur a legal obligation when that obligation can be altered at a subsequent meeting?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman does not contradict my statement that the point of declaration and the legal obligation can come about in two ways. One comes when a recommendation from the board is confirmed by the general meeting as a final dividend. That is the point of declaration. The second comes when

an interim dividend is declared; it does not need the confirmation of the company meeting, but it still becomes legally binding when declared. I do not think that there is any dispute between us. The declaration point arises in two different forms for two different forms of dividend, and on each occasion, once the declaration is made, it becomes a legal obligation on the company.

Mr. Emery: Let me pursue the question of declaration of an interim or final dividend a little further. If it is the first and not the final dividend, how will the Government act if it is very slightly above the line because, for one reason or another, the company wishes to pay all its dividend as an interim payment, with nothing at the end? That happens occasionally, though not often, I admit. If the interim dividend is larger than that which would be allowed if it were a total final dividend, how does the Clause apply? Is there any relevance to the control of the interim dividend?

Mr. Hattersley: Certainly, it is relevant. It is dangerous to talk in simple percentages on these occasions, but, for the sake of exposition, let us do so. If a company wanted to make a first interim dividend, and that dividend was 3½ per cent. greater than the previous year, it would have filled its entitlement for that year. If it wanted to make a first dividend which was 1 per cent. greater, a similar calculation would be made for a possible second and final dividend. Our policy is that it should be limited to 3½ per cent. over the previous year, and how that 3½ per cent. is divided between a variety of dividends is immaterial.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. Bruce-Gardyne rose—

Mr. Hattersley: No; I must carry on with my argument. Throughout this afternoon and this evening, and all yesterday, I have been not ungenerous in giving way.
The two other advantages of applying the control at the point of declaration are, first, that that is the point when an effective decision is taken, and, second, it is when the decision becomes generally known. This is certainly so in the case of quoted companies. It becomes immediately and readily observable, because the rules of the Stock Exchange


require (a) immediate publication when the board recommends a final dividend and (b) immediate notification of an interim dividend.
It is only right that at that point, when it is likely to become public, the restraint should fall, not least because we know that the market responds to the first public indication of what the dividend is likely to be. It would be manifestly wrong were the market to respond to a public indication later vitiated by State intervention. Therefore, I ask the House to confirm that as the point at which the restraint should be imposed, and that the position should remain as it is in the Bill.

4.30 a.m.

Sir J. Foster: If I understood the Minister correctly, he said that the board declared the interim dividend, that for the purposes of the Bill the final dividend was declared at the annual general meeting, and that, therefore, the Bill applied to the declaration there. He is wrong about that, because subsection (6) defines "declaration" as the decision. The decision comes before the annual meeting, and therefore the Act applies to the decision on a final dividend and not to its declaration at the meeting. In both cases it is the board's decision that counts.
We now come to the points of principle, with which it is difficult to deal at 4.30 in the morning. I think that I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, and, if so, I agree with him, that if the interim dividend is not greater than the whole dividend of the previous year there is no harm in its being bigger than the interim of the previous year. If the total for the previous year was 10 per cent., divided into 4 and 6 per cent., there would be no objection to the company's announcing a 5 per cent. interim dividend.

Mr. Hattersley: indicated assent.

Sir J. Foster: Therefore, the only objection to an interim dividend would be if it were more than the total for the year before. One is not allowed to pay an increase of 3½ per cent. more without obtaining the Treasury's consent. That is where our argument is strong. If 3½ per cent. is usually accepted by the Treasury, subject to its being able to take another year for comparison, it would be a better practice, if a company is

announcing a dividend of 3½ per cent. more than that of the previous year, to declare it and for the Treasury to intervene only if it is sought to pay it without Treasury consent.
In other words, the company should be free to declare a dividend of 3½ per cent. more. The Government are saying that it must obtain Treasury consent before declaring it, because the Clause says that it cannot pay a dividend greater than that paid in the previous year. Even if it is 3½ per cent. more it is forbidden, though that is the ordinary norm.
As the hon. Gentleman argued that this is a purely mathematical exercise, it would be more satisfactory and easier for the companies to be able to declare a dividend of up to 3½ per cent. without having to obtain the Treasury's consent. If the Treasury then wanted to take another year, because it thought that the year chosen for comparison—was not a typically characteristic year, to use the hon. Gentleman's words in Committee, it would say"No ". I do not think that his argument is convincing. A company which wants to pay even within 3½ per cent. more must go to the Treasury and say, "We want to pay 3½ per cent. more. May we do so?" If the Treasury says "Yes", we then go back to the board.
The company could get round it very simply in this way. It will declare whatever dividend it wants, subject to Treasury consent. That will not be a declaration of dividend. The company may say, "We are declaring a dividend of 20 per cent., having declared 15 per cent. last year, subject to Treasury consent". It can then put the Treasury on the spot and say, "It is 3½ per cent. for the following reasons", or it can declare a dividend 3½ per cent. more subject to Treasury consent. Perhaps we are fighting a shadow fight, because the way round it—[Interruption.] It may be a legal way round it.
It is not what the Government want, because the Treasury will have to say, "We do not agree even with 3½ per cent. because it is not a characteristic year". It will be easier from the share loan point of view, because the company will telephone the Stock Exchange and say, "We are declaring a dividend of X per cent. subject to Treasury consent". If it is done in the way that the Government want, it has to go to the Treasury first.


It makes it very awkward for the decision at the board meeting. It must find out from the Treasury what it will allow and then come to a decision.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) used the terrifying phrase "get round it". We are very sensitive about that phrase on any aspect of the prices and incomes policy. I should like him to confirm that when he uses it he does not mean to get round the policy, but the point at which the incidence applies. Getting round that is very special use of the language. If the company genuinely makes a declaration, then the policy applies. If it merely says, "We would make a declaration of X per cent. were it not for the Government", that is not the legally binding declaration to which I referred and does not produce the conflict in law which the Government seek to avoid.
I agree that there might well be times when it would be said, "This is what we would do were it not for the Treasury". I have no objection to that. Indeed, I can see very great advantage in it. I wish to ensure that people who read HANSARD do not think that the phrase "get round it", as used by the hon. and learned Gentleman, does not carry the implication which it usually carries.

Mr. Ridley: With leave, I wish to make a brief point.
What happens if a company goes to the annual general meeting and it is decided, not to frank, but to double the dividend approved by the Treasury and recommended by the directors? If 72,000 shareholders throw out the directors' recommendation and decide to double the dividend, the whole of this form of control is wrecked.
The Bill provides that
the Treasury may … prohibit the companies from declaring …".
But the company is not just a few directors; it is the shareholders. If the company takes this extreme and, I admit, rather, unlikely action, presumably each of the 72,000 shareholders would be liable for prosecution and fines of an unlimited amount. This shows the difficulty which a glib decision to control dividends can land one in if one took action of that sort at the annual general meeting. I may be wrong.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Ridley: If I am, I will admit it. If directors cannot be overruled in this sense, I would not press the point further but I am disappointed that the Government have not taken the point.

Mr. R. Carr: I hope that Ministers busy shaking their heads will answer the point just put by my hon. Friend. I attended an annual general meeting earlier today when the directors put a motion that a certain dividend should be paid. I am no expert in tax law, but I would have thought that it was in the hands of those present to vote it or not.

Mr. Hattersley: They could have accepted or vetoed it, but could not have done what the hon. Member for Ciren-cester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) sug-gets. It could not be doubled or increased. The problem does not arise, because such a decision would not be within the powers of the meeting.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Rafton Founder: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 4, line 43, after 'Treasury' insert:
' which will notify its decision within seven days of application'.
This Amendment has arisen from a comment in Committee by the Undersecretary of State. In essence, it seeks merely to codify his statement of intention and hope. It is directly and solely motivated by the desire to express in unmistakeable terms the maximum period which may elapse between the company appealing to the Treasury for guidance on its dividend policy and its subsequent receipt of that advice.
One of the recurring aspects of the Bill is that so much is to be left to Departmental or Ministerial discretion. To legislate, as the Bill would, in broad discretionary terms is to legislate on the softest of shifting sands, and the result would inevitably be bad law. The most effective way of limiting discretion in this context and of letting companies know precisely where they stand would be to accept this Amendment.
I have a deep-rooted hostility to the granting of discretionary powers in legislation and my Amendment reflects a


clear desire to inject some element of preciseness. While in no way supporting the basic principle of the Clause, we are seeking to remove at any rate that uncertainty so far as the timetable for a reply from the Treasury is concerned.
A frequent feature of the Order Paper in recent weeks has been Questions to the Treasury on the dividend practices of many companies and the Government's views thereon. Efforts to ascertain a clear dividend criterion have been of little avail, as instanced by the Chief Secretary's reply on 28th May. He said that it would be
… a matter for consideration in the light of the full circumstances in each individual case"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 132.]
If that is the clearest guidance on dividend criteria which can be gleaned, it is most important that a clear timetable should be established. At present, there is nothing in the Bill to stipulate the length of time which the Treasury may take to determine its decisions on companies seeking dividend guidance. Any company in doubt will turn to the Treasury for guidance and it is important that the official answer should be given as expeditiously as possible.
4.45 a.m.
For instance, what happens if a company is contemplating going to the capital market on a new issue? It would not wish to be delayed for an unspecified time after applying for a Treasury ruling before publicising its dividend position and policy. There is a strong probability that a great many companies, perhaps numbering thousands, will make applications for guidance. This will certainly be so, to judge from paragraph 56 of Cmnd. 3590, which states that all quoted companies are asked to notify the Treasury whenever an intended distribution would involve any increase above total declarations in respect of the preceding company accounts year. The flood of queries which will arise will not be evened out over the year as a whole. Many, perhaps the bulk, will come shortly after the end of the calendar year, when so many company account years end, but, likewise, there will be a number coming after March and September.
I draw attention to the Under-Secretary's words during the sixth sitting of the Standing Committee, when he said:
 How long do companies have to wait for an answer? The answer at the moment is 72 hours, three working days. We intend that that time span should be the time space for the entire policy. There may be exceptions … Our intention is that we should stick to the 72-hour rule as a service to industry, because I accept the implication that it would be intolerable were people kept waiting an appreciable time to hear the Government's view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 13th June, 1968; c. 831.]
That is a clear and perfectly reasonable statement of intention.
In that case, why does the Amendment seek to insert seven days as the answer period instead of 72 hours, the time mentioned by the Under-Secretary? Quite simply it is because my hon. Friends seek to be reasonable, or, as we have doubled the period of 72 hours, we could be said to be doubly reasonable. Cynics may well say that it should not take the Treasury 72 hours or seven days to say no; that may be. But, to sum up, the principle underlying the Amendment is crystal clear. Companies are entitled to know where they stand and the maximum period which they should be required to wait in suspense before receiving an answer from the Treasury to any dividend application which they may have made. I hope that the Government will agree to this time scale being written into the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that with this Amendment we are taking Amendment No. 153, in page 5, line 2. at end insert:
If the consent of the Treasury is delayed beyond a period of seven days a Company shall be entitled to exceed the time limits within which it must hold its Annual General Meeting as laid down by the Companies Act 1948 by the period of time exceeding the said seven days when consent (or otherwise) is given.

Mr. Hattersley: Grateful as I am to the hon. Gentleman for his conciliatory tone, I am unable to accept the Amendment. Certainly, it is our intention, as I said in Committee, that as often as possible, and most often it will be possible, information should be given to industry within a very short period. The hon. Gentleman will know that when, in Committee, I said that it was our intention to operate the 72-hour rule, I was accused by some hon. Members of


undue haste which was said to prove my desire to discriminate in favour of industry and against trade unions. It is our intention to make sure that an answer is given as quickly as possible and with maximum despatch, because, I repeat, it would be intolerable for industry to be kept waiting for this information.
However, there will be cases when more detailed examination is necessary. I have already said that the arithmetical application of the 3½ per cent. rule will determine whether permission can be given but there will be times when rather more than that has to be done, most often because industry itself will have asked for some special consideration to be taken into account and when something more than the arithmetical principle should be applied. It would be wrong to promise that when that happened, the necessary examination could always be done within seven days.
I ask the House to accept that it is our intention to do this work as speedily as possible, but that there may be times when to make sure that an individual company is receiving the concessions and benefits which it should receive, within what the policy allows, and we may then need extra time to examine and justify the claims. The Amendment would impose far too arbitrary a limit on our proceedings.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 5, line 2, at end insert:
(2) The Treasury, in making orders under this section, shall have regard to the considerations set out in Schedule (General Considerations Relating to Dividends) to this Act.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendments No. 53, in page 4, line 39, after ' section ' insert:
' and of Schedule (General considerations relating to dividends)'.
and No. 103, the new Schedule:

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO DIVIDENDS

Statement on Dividend Restraint by H.M. Treasury

1. The 3½ per cent. ceiling will apply to dividends. Companies will be required to limit any essential increase to not more than 3½ per cent. of the dividend for the preceding account year, and are asked to make no increase at all without good reason. No company how-

ever will be required by the operation of this standard to distribute lower dividends than it did two years ago, or possibly earlier in some cases. Statutory powers will be sought to back up this ceiling and prevent breaches of the policy. This scheme for dividend restraint will be more fully described in the White Paper and in a Treasury announcement. It is intended that the scheme should apply to any recommendation for a quoted company's ordinary dividend made after 19th March 1968. In the case of such dividends companies are asked to notify the Treasury in good time before they commit themselves wherever their intentions would be to increase dividends above the total for the last company year.

2. The following supplementary guidance is given to assist companies in observing the Chancellor's request.

Companies affected

3. This appeal for dividend restraint is addressed to all companies incorporated in the United Kingdom, with the following exceptions—

(i) unit trusts and investment trusts;
(ii) those close companies which increase distributions to meet the requirements of the Finance Act 1965;
(iii) companies wholly in the beneficial ownership of other companies where ordinary dividend payments are exclusively intercompany transactions.

Dividends affected

4. All distributions in respect of paid-up ordinary share capital which are recommended after today will be covered by this scheme.

Limits on dividend increases

5. Total ordinary dividends in respect of a company account year should be limited to—

(i) not more than 3½ per cent. above the amount of ordinary dividends declared in respect of the preceding account year; or
(ii) not more than the amount in respect of the account year before that; or
(iii) where dividends in each of the last two account years were abnormally low, and subject to examination and approval by the Treasury, not more than the amount in respect of an earlier account year.

Calculation of dividends

6. The maximum amount of distributions for this purpose should be adjusted pro rata to take account of any differences in the length of company account years; increases in share capital reflecting new cash subscribed or the value of other real considerations received; and repayments of share capital.

Bonus issues

7. Scrip issues and stock options are a source of misunderstanding to many people, and their issue during the next crucial phase of incomes policy could become an impediment to full co-operation in the policy. The Government ask companies to defer any such proposals for the time being. If however entirely new scrip issues and stock options are introduced, heir value will have to be counted as though


it were an ordinary dividend distribution for the purposes of this scheme of restraint.

Notification of dividend increases

8. The Chancellor's appeal for restraint is addressed to all companies, and in order to achieve its objectives the Treasury will need to have prior notification of dividend proposals in the main company sector. All quoted companies are therefore requested to notify the Treasury whenever an intended distribution would involve any increase at all above the total of the preceding account year. And companies are further requested not to take irrevocable action upon such intentions without the Treasury's consent.

9. If in the company's view there are likely to be imperative reasons for exceptional consideration, such as remitting higher dividends from abroad in the interests of the balance of payments, the Treasury should be informed in good time for effective consultations to take place before dividends are recommended.

Notification and consent

10. Company representatives are encouraged to consult the Treasury in advance of the Board meeting at which dividend recommendations would be agreed for immediate publication. This could be particularly valuable where companies may experience difficulties or seek exceptional consideration. Exchanges can take place in confidence, and on a hypothetical basis, without conflicting with the responsibilities of Boards of Directors. The Treasury will however in most cases be able to regard such consultations as notification for purposes of the dividend restraint scheme, and to give fully effective clearance to proposals in advance of public announcements.

11. If companies prefer to notify the Treasry of proposals after the relevant Board decision, published recommendations of increased distributions will have to be regarded as open to amendment until Treasury consent has been obtained. Treasury clearance should normally be obtainable within a matter of days.

Moreover it can be assumed that consent would not be withheld in respect of any recommendation which complied with published Treasury guidance.

In either event, increased dividends should not be declared at company meetings unless specific Treasury consent has been given.

Interim dividends may often not call for notification, since they would rarely bring distributions for a year above the total amount declared for the previous year. But where an intended interim declaration would do so, the intention must be notified and Treasury consent obtained before any irrevocable action is taken by a Board of Directors.

Prospectus commitments

Some companies entered into commitments before Budget Day by giving firm dividend proposals in prospectuses or comparable formal documents, for example in connection with capital issues, new company flotations and takeover and merger arrangements.

Where such commitments had been entered into before 19th March companies may pay

dividends in line with, but not exceeding, those set ut in the relevant document. At or before the time of recommending a dividend based on a prior commitment, companies should notify the Treasury, sending a copy of the prospectus or comparable document, in order to minimise misunderstanding.

Companies wishing to enter into commitments after 19th March should confine public dividend proposals within the limits set out in published Treasury guidance, or should consult the Treasury in good time if they consider that there might be exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Ridley: As the Amendment is mainly a paving amendment for the new Schedule I will address my remarks mainly to the Schedule. We come to the crassly stupid part of this policy, the desire to impose control on dividends at all. On this side, we utterly reject the idea that this should be done. The sentiments in the Treasury's guidance are utter anathema to us. Nevertheless, it is essential, if this extraordinary control is to be brought into legislative effect, that the persons affected should know what they are supposed to do and what crimes they might commit, and should have a vague idea of the rules of the game which are to be operated against them from now.
This is no less than the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) tried to do when he wrote his White Paper on prices and incomes into the 1966 Bill as a Schedule. The precedent which he set then may well cost the Government dear in paper when more Schedules are put down to Bills of a heterogenous nature going through this House. At this point, I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) for the "Emery Schedule" which appears on the Notice Paper, but is not selected. It breaks new ground in Parliament.
The proposed Schedule contains guidance and criteria for those who have a problem with their dividends on which the Treasury will decide. We hate the power that the Treasury is given to make decisions at all about dividends, but if it is to have that power we should at least explore the powers and criteria of this Schedule. It writes into the Bill what the Government believe are their own intentions. The Schedule is as clear as mud. It says that companies will be required to limit any essential increase. What is an essential increase? It says that all companies are asked not to increase dividends "without good


reason", but what is good reason? It says that companies should notify the Treasury "in good time". All these are vague expressions, and do not enable any company to know whether it is doing the right thing or not. It would be a service if the Schedule could be amended to bring it up to date on this point of difficulty.
Paragraph 7, on bonus issues, says that under the voluntary system of control which is the appointed instrument of cooperation between industry and the Government. It is said that the Government and industry are hand in hand in their desire to work this splendid new policy. We have been told that scrip issues and stock options are a source of misunderstanding to many people and could become an impediment to full co-operation in the policy.
The Government ask companies to defer any such proposal for the time being
says the proposed Schedule. Some companies were actually stupid enough to do that. The Financial Secretary knows full well that scrip issue or stock option has nothing to do with increases in distribution. No money changes hands. It is a pure piece of window dressing to put this in. It was insufferable to put it in. But then to use this voluntary control to stop stock options and scrip issues and for the Bill, when published, to contain no powers to control them, is the height of muddle-dee-dee and ridiculous nonsense.
I asked the Chancellor a Question about this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that the stock option and scrip issue control had lapsed and was not necessary. So companies are being put to all this trouble without any legislation, authority or power by the Treasury mandarins, led by the Chancellor, stopping all scrip issues, "going to town" over the matter, and upsetting the balance of the market for a short time and then not even perpetuating the power in legislation.
What is the economic justification for this policy? All economic policy needs justifying and the control of dividends, as set out in the Schedule, is a new major economic departure. The effect, so far as it is successful in stopping dividends rising, will be to inflate the values of companies and send up their equity quotations on the Stock Exchange. [HON.

MEMBERS: "NO."] One effect of the policy could be that companies keep much more money within them and become more valuable.
As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), this accretion of cash in companies which do not need it and which are not intending to invest it will have the effect of making them more vulnerable to take over, and, what is more, wasting resources by storing up this surplus cash which should be put to better use by investment. In many instances it will have the effect of pushing up share prices, whatever my hon. Friends say.
Is this what the Government want? Is the point of this Schedule, this dividend control, to increase stock market values? Will this encourage the workers to tighten their belts? Is this the means by which the lower-paid workers, whom we discussed earlier, are to be encouraged to accept further sacrifice, seeing Stock Exchange values go up? This is the policy upon which the Government have embarked. The price is very high. The effect of all this nonsense, if applied rigorously and over a period, will be to wreck the capital market, which is one of the great assets of the country.

Mr. Harold Lever: As I am to reply, and as it is rather late in the morning, I would be greatly helped if the hon. Gentleman could tell me whether he is arguing against his Amendment or in favour of it, because the Amendment embodies in statutory form Treasury guidance which has been issued. Since the hon. Gentleman's Amendment has the effect of embodying in statutory form Treasury guidance, how can he possibly say that he is arguing in favour of his Amendment when he suggests that this guidance should not be given, still less in statutory form, and should not be implemented?

Mr. Ridley: I welcome the Financial Secretary to our debate. The hon. Gentleman is a latecomer, but he is very welcome, because his great knowledge of the stock market and dividends will be of benefit to the House.

Mr. Emery: Successful application in the stock market.

Mr. Ridley: Yes. I am against control of dividends. If there is to be control


of dividends I am in favour of there being guidance on how that control may be exercised and what the criteria are to be.
Having tentatively put forward some criteria, I am emboldened to make a few remarks about the criteria in the Schedule to illustrate some respects in which they might be slightly improved. If I had the perspicacity and energy of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) I would have written my own criteria, but I have been extremely busy. I apologise to the Financial Secretary that the Amendment to the Schedule which I have put down is not so perfect in its phraseology as the one that my hon. Friend has achieved on prices and incomes. That is my error, but I hope I have made my position clear and that the Financial Secretary sees no further inconsistency in what I am saying.
5.0 a.m.
We have this extraordinary dividend control which is brought in in the name of social justice or fairness, but for which there is no economic reason. There is no economic justification for the Treasury's guidance. The Treasury simply says, "It is to be done". Over and over again we have been told that the justification for this is that it will encourage workers to accept a clobbering of their wages. If that is social justice, perhaps I might remind the House of some of the events which followed similar controls.
In 1965, we were told that the imposition of Capital Gains Tax would induce the workers to accept wage restraint, but there was a record increase in wages in that year. They went up by 8·4 per cent., and they went up by the same amount again in 1966. The increases may have been justified, but they were not moderated by the existence of Capital Gains Tax, and these massive increases in taxation have not had that effect either. It is difficult to see how the application of the Schedule and the control of dividends will have the effect of encouraging workers voluntarily to do with less than they might otherwise get.
The disadvantages are enormous, and the drawbacks far greater than hon. Gentlemen seem to realise. This policy will have the effect of wrecking the British capital market if it is applied rigorously

and for a long time. It will have the effect of making much misinvestment, and much mal-distribution of capital resources. It will have the effect of wrecking the balance between supply and demand for capital in the private sector.
That is what the Financial Secretary's brainchild is going to achieve. It is a sorry day when, as a sort of placebo, we see ridiculous policies of this sort, not properly thought out, not properly legislated, and not enforceable. This is the climax of social folly. I hope that the Schedule is accepted, in which case we shall have many Amendments to make to it, even if that has to be done in another place.

Mr. Emery: At this late—or early— hour I shall attempt to be fairly brief, which is not always my wont when we are kept up so late.
I, too, welcome the Financial Secretary to our discussion. He knows quite a lot about prices and incomes policies, having been in the Chair in Committee on another Prices and Incomes Bill. The only thing that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that since he was in the Chair the rules have been changed so that we are now able to debate certain matters which it was not possible to debate before. If the hon. Gentleman studies the Schedule and the Amendment he will realise that they enable us to discuss certain matters which we would have been precluded from discussing had my hon. Friend the Member for Ciren-cester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) not had the perspicacity to table this Schedule.
The Schedule represents what was operative at one time, albeit without any legal power of enforcement. When my hon. Friend was talking about scrip issue he used the word "muddle-dee-dee". I thought that he was being much too kind. I thought that it was pure arrogance in the manner of government by edict being followed by some juniors of the master of this—the Prime Minister himself, a decision without any power, a decision which could have had major effects on some companies. But, of course, to the Treasury this is not of any major concern.
I want to know this. If we have criteria for prices and incomes, why should we not have criteria for dividends put into the Bill as a Schedule? While


I do not agree with all the aspects of the new Schedule, that is not the point. The point is that we should try to ensure that the Government accept some criteria. If they do not, what guarantee have we that at some other point of time the Government will not do exactly what it has done before and decide that scrip issues shall again by directive be taken into calculation within dividend?

Mr. Bmce-Gardyne: On this point, I think that it is worth bearing in mind that Sir Halford Reddish, of Rugby Portland Cement, had the temerity to disregard the Government's order by paying an extra interim dividend in conjunction with his final dividend of the previous year, and the Chief Secretary said"Well, if the company is to behave like this we shall have to consider what we shall do about it". They are still considering it, and considering rules they have not yet laid down.

Mr. Emery: I thank my hon. Friend, because this is exemplary of the point I am trying to make. The whole basis of my speech is that what we are trying to do is to stop government by edict by asking that the criteria be spelt out. There is no way we can stop that unless we have some criteria laid down.
I congratulate Sir Halford Reddish for saying, "Damn Governments—if they have not laid down rules then I shall go my own way." I wish that there were more industrialists who would take the same line, because it is the only way to expose the double-dealing.
I leave the Under-Secretary out of that description. It is the general double-dealing of the Government, not his individual position, to which I am referring. I am sure he understands that I meant no reference to him. But it is a double-dealing aspect of the policy of the Government.
I regret that we should be discussing this matter at this late hour, and that we cannot get more publicity for it, because it is absolutely wrong that on any aspect of the Bill, particularly concerning dividends and companies, the manner in which the Government will be able to behave if there are no criteria is entirely in their own choosing and that this House at no time will be able to do anything about it except by exchanges across the

Floor at Question Time, which is inadequate.
If the Government would only say, "Fair enough—we do not want to behave in the manner you are suggesting. We accept that there ought to be some guidelines, that these guidelines ought to have legislative force, and though we do not like the new Schedule we accept that we should put in guidelines in another place." If that was so, I am certain that my hon. Friend would be willing to withdraw his Schedule. This would be the best line the Government could take so as to appear reasonable to anyone in the City or in law or company management.

Mr. John Smith: The Clause needs a Schedule. It is extremely vague and needs amplifying. I have no wish to improve this part of the Bill; in my opinion this form of dividend restraint will waste resources and money will be needlessly retained within companies, thus producing the opposite of productivity. A profit increase in a company is more often than not the sign of an increase in productivity.
Further, the effect abroad of limiting dividend increases to 3½ per cent—which is an important aspect for consideration —would be far outweighed by the promises we have been given today about equal pay for women, which will cost the economy far more than any dividend retained by companies under the Clause. I hope that that is another promise which will evolve before the gnomes of Zurich react.

Mr. Emery: I wonder whether the Treasury approved that.

Mr. Smith: It will have to be evolved before the Chancellor hears about it. The Clause without a Schedule allows the Treasury to prohibit the payment of dividends.
at a rate greater than that paid for the preceding financial year.
That is a far from effective phrase. The Clause then defines an increase in rate as an increase in the amount of ordinary dividend. The words "rate" and "amount" have two entirely different meanings.

Mr. Ridley: Does my hon. Friend remember that the Under-Secretary argued the difference between wage rates.


and earnings; here is an even more glaring difference.

Mr. Smith: Yes; rates and amounts are quite different things. There is no allowance for a number of things which must be allowed for—such as conversion of convertible loan stocks, or rights issues. Rights issues are not covered sufficiently even in the Schedule—which is a copy of the Treasury guidance. The Clause does not allow for specified increases; it either permits an increase or allows no increase.
It has been said that the White Paper on this subject is a Schedule to the original Act. The White Paper does not deal in detail with dividend restraint. If the White Paper is a Schedule to the parent Act why cannot the Treasury guidance be a Schedule? Why cannot we have an "Emery Schedule", setting out the criteria as a whole? I do not suggest that the Treasury guidance should be incorporated un-amended as a Schedule because, like the Clause, it contains extraordinary impre-cisions—extraordinary for the Treasury, at any rate. The part dealing with bonus issues will do as well as any other as an example.
I had hoped that the Financial Secretary, instead of subscribing to a lot of claptrap about bonus issues would do his best to introduce shares of no par value. In any case, if a company is not permitted to make bonus issues it makes no odds to the company; it can subdivide its shares. But if we are to have paragraphs of this sort they should be precisely worded. It is not the responsibility of the Financial Secretary to explain the Schedule, since it is ours—

Mr. Emery: But their words.

Mr. Smith: The Schedule says:
If, however, entirely new scrip issues and stock options are introduced … ".
What does the phrase "entirely new" mean, and what does "introduced" mean? The normal meaning of the introduction of shares is the introduction of shares already issued on the Stock Exchange, and this does not mean that. Later the Schedule grasps the nettle which the Under-Secretary grasped, but instead of talking about declarations of dividend, it refers, correctly in this case,

to recommendations of dividend to the annual general meeting. One of the good results of adopting this Treasury statement would mean that it would have to be redrafted in more precise terms.

5.15 a.m.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I commend the industry of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and join my hon. Friends in supporting the Amendment. If we are to play monkey in the way the Government suggest, we must know the rules of the game. In so far as the Schedule is designed to say what the Treasury considers to be the rules, it serves a useful purpose. It also enables us to examine, though briefly at this hour, the philosophy of dividend restraint which the Government are trying to apply.

Mr. Harold Lever: On a point of order. Are we entitled, in discussing this Amendment, to have a general discussion of the philosophy of dividend restraint?

Sir J. Foster: Further to that point of order. Is not the philosophy contained in the Schedule?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The best advice I can give to hon. Members is that their remarks must relate to the Schedule.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I accept the logic of the argument that if one intends to throw trade unionists in prison because they refuse to play one's silly game, one must apply the same rules to companies in their dividend distribution. I do not accept the logic of the position because I do not accept the basis of the Bill. My criticism of dividend restraint in this context is that because the logic requires one to include restraint on dividends in the overall policy to make it seem to be fair, one's objection to dividend restraint reinforces one's other objections to the Bill. The economic objections to dividend restraint have been pointed out—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting into a wide discussion of the matter. The purpose of the Schedule is to spell out the policy. The hon. Member must, therefore, relate his remarks to the Schedule, which he is not doing at the moment.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I was seeking to consider the philosophy which presumably lies behind the Schedule, in view of its origins in the mind of the Treasury.

Mr. Harold Lever: On a point of order. The Amendment seeks to fetter the powers of the Minister in a particular way, by incorporating the Schedule. Although we can discuss whether the Minister should be fettered in this way, would you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we cannot begin a Second Reading debate on all the powers contained in the Bill?

Mr. Emery: Further to that point of order. The Schedule sets out a number of specific aspects. It sets out the manner in which the dividend restraint affects companies, it sets out how the limitation shall be carried out, how the bonus issues shall be carried out and how the notification shall be carried out. This is what the Schedule is about. I submit that so long as any discussion refers to any of those items it must refer to the Schedule.

Mr. Lever: Further to that point of order. The question we are considering, surely, is whether the Minister's power for exercising dividend restraint should be limited in the way suggested in the Schedule. It is only on that point that we are able to discuss—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members would do better and would have your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if they allowed me to finish my sentence. The Amendment proposes that the Government's powers should be restricted in a particular manner in the Schedule. That, surely, is the only question we are allowed to discuss.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Member allow me to deal with the point of order as it has been made so far? Both hon. Members are perfectly correct. The question is whether the hon. Member who has the Floor is in order. He should not spell it out in detail; that is the purpose of the Amendment.

Mr. 'Bruce-Gardyne: I do not want to pursue that point further.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order. We are discussing with Amendment Mo. 59, Amendments Nos. 52 and

103. If the Question were put on the Schedule, it would be, That the new Schedule be added to the Bill. On that Question surely it is in order to discuss the principle and all matters relating to the Schedule as well as the detail. I submit that there can be no bounds of order in discussing the matters contained in the Schedule.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We can discuss only points in the Schedule and I hope that hon. Members will not pursue these points of order indefinitely.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I do not want to hold up the progress of our discussions. I leave the point I was making.
Philosophical objections to dividend restraint as such have been expressed by my hon. Friends and I go along with them entirely. I want to consider in brief detail one or two aspects of the wording of the Schedule. On an earlier Amendment the Under-Secretary told us that the great thing about dividend restraint was that it was a purely arithmetical calculation. I have been pursuing this matter with a certain amount of care in recent weeks and I find it far from a purely arithmetical calculation. The second line of the Schedule says:
Companies will be required to limit any essential increase to not more than 3½ per cent. of the dividend for the preceding account year.
That depends, because, first, one might get what at my small son's school is called a gold star for good performance.
The Chief Secretary told me on one occasion that if a company had a large income abroad and sought to repatriate that income, the maximisation of repatriation was more important than the 3½ per cent. limit and, therefore, the 3½ per cent. limit would be by-passed.
Another example is where the Treasury simply gets its sums wrong, as it did in the case of, I think, Airborne Industries, when it apparently slipped—

Mr. Lever: On a point of order. What can the question of the Treasury's tendency or lack of tendency to get its sums wrong have to do with the question of whether the Treasury's powers should be restricted by incorporating the proposals in the Schedule? Is it in order to pursue that, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to listen to the debate and intervene when necessary.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Financial Secretary cannot have appreciated that we are discussing not only Amendment No. 59, but Amendments Nos. 53 and 103. I am devoting my remarks to the latter. The hon. Gentleman cannot have realised that we are taking the three Amendments together.

Mr. Ridley: He is not taking it seriously.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will proceed with his speech.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I certainly will.
Line 7 states that dividends have to be related to the payment of the previous year or, possibly, earlier in some cases. I have been utterly unable to find from the Treasury how far back it goes. In one case it has gone back three years, but at no time is the Treasury prepared to say how far back it goes. This is another point on which we want further enlightenment.
Line 19 of the new Schedule refers to the United Kingdom. This is a sign of modesty, and a highly significant one. The great queen, unlike some other members of the Government, seems to recognise that her writ does not extend to Rhodesia at least. The possible consequences of this are interesting.
Only on Tuesday, the Chancellor complained about the large increase in portfolio investment in Australasia. Some of us suggested that there might be good reasons for that increase. The Bill, and the point made in the new Schedule that dividend restraint is limited to the United Kingdom, may have a significant part to play in the troubles which the Chancellor is having with the big upsurge in portfolio investment in other parts of the sterling area.
In paragraph 6, the new Schedule deals with the calculation of dividends and states that
The maximum amount of distribution … should be adjusted pro rata to take account of any differences in the length of company account years ".
I have discovered that that is not by any means the only way in which the maxi-

mum amount of dividends has to be adjusted. There is also the question of capital issues which has been brought out in the case of certain companies which have been allowed to exceed the 3½ per cent. ceiling. I think, in particular, of the case of Burmah Oil.
5.30 a.m.
The plum is undoubtedly paragraph 7, which refers to bonus issues. This should be locked up in a box and put in the foundations of some building as a memorial to the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said, the Government have announced that this ludicrous attempt to control scrip issues, but not share splits, has been abandoned, but what happens to companies which were denied the opportunity to make scrip issues when they wished to during the period when this form of control was being applied?
Paragraphs 10 and 11 deal with notification and consent. We have this glorious vision of long nights of tea and buns in the Treasury while the nation's fate hangs in the balance and the Treasury tries to chop £600 off the total distribution of Grattan Warehouses, or even £87 off the total distribution of Crosby Spring Interiors; eventually in the early hours of the morning—at about this time of the morning, I suppose—the consultations are completed, the reduction is made, and the nation and the gnomes breathe again. What a pity it is that the same amount of attention as is paid to the total distribution of Grattan Warehouses is not paid to some other economic commitments that concerns us.
Finally, there is the question of prospectus commitments. Here the most obvious example of contradiction is the case we have already discussed on the Floor of the House concerning Lex Garages. The Government sought to make some bogus distinction between what they liked to call near contractual obligations and other undertakings. It has been made absolutely clear to the Government that this distinction cannot stand up. Such anomalies are bound to arise when an attempt is made to apply the vague and almost meaningless rules which the Treasury has attempted to apply in this instance.
Little as one can admire the Schedule, at least it is to be preferred to a


billet-doux from the Financial Secretary to the Business News section of The Times, which is the only public guidance that we have had on how dividend restraint is supposed to work out. Therefore, little as I admire the Schedule—I certainly exonerate my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury from any responsibility for its drafting— at least it is better than nothing and gives companies some idea of the rules which they are expected to observe in this ridiculous game the Government want them to play.

Sir J. Foster: I know that the Financial Secretary has not been attending very closely, but I want to ask him to follow some of the Clause and the Schedule. The passage in the Schedule dealing with limits on dividend increases is necessary to control the Clause, otherwise there is a breach of faith on the part of the Government. We know that the real position is that the Schedule represents the Government's views. I agree that it is our Amendment as a matter of procedure and that it might, therefore, be suggested that I should ask my hon. Friends what it means. It is not a question of what it means. It is a question of looking at the real position.
The Schedule is a statement by the Treasury. The limits on dividend increase set out in the Schedule are those which should apply rather than the wider limits which are inherent in the Clause. There are three criteria for dividend increases set out in the new Schedule: not more than 3½ per cent. above the dividend in the previous year, not more than 3½ per cent½ above the previous account year, or, if the two years were abnormally low, not more than in an earlier account year.
Under the Bill as it stands, the Treasury is allowed to choose any year, not just the two account years. That is a breach of faith, because the directions given by the Treasury are limited to the two years. It was said in Committee that, if the Treasury considers two account years not characteristic, it make take any year. The Government ought not to have power to act contrary to the criteria. That is the point.
There can be no object in allowing the Treasury to go to any previous year, not just the two preceding account years,

save to restrict a company from paying a dividend within the 3½ per cent. If a company wants to pay a dividend within the 3½ per cent., it may make representations and seek the Treasury's consent. Only if the Treasury wants to prevent the payment of a legitimate dividend will the Clause have any purpose. The purpose is to deprive the company of the 3½ per cent.
After a statement of criteria by the Treasury, it is wrong to provide that the Government may go to any account year, not just the two previous account years. This is the reason for our proposal. The criteria in the new Schedule would shame the Government, one imagines, if they attempted to take another account year. The Under-Secretary assured us that they would pay attention to and be guided by the criteria. If they are guided to limit themselves to the two previous account years, then at least morally, and perhaps legally, they must not go to another account year.

Mr. Harold Lever: Hon. Gentlemen are entitled to rove as widely as the Chair, quite rightly, permits, and to probe the Government's intentions. But I do not have to roam as widely as the hon. Gentleman or to answer questions about the details of the Schedule, because I shall recommend the House to reject the Amendment on the ground that the whole concept of the Schedule is unsuitable. Were its merits never so great, and its prose style never so attractive, I should still urge as a vital objection to its inclusion that it is nothing more or less than an attempt to give statutory form to the Press statements of the Treasury.
Much as I value them and hope that the business community value them, they are not intended to be given statutory form. They are not suited to that. I readily accept all the arguments on this point from hon. Members opposite, including my own Member, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), who made it clear that it would be almost impossible to interpret in a statutory manner what was never intended for incorporation in a statute.
Therefore, we need not trouble to examine whether these Press statements set out wise principles. It is enough to


say that we feel that they are sensible guidance. The only difference between me and hon. Members opposite is that I want these Press statements to act as guidance in the form in which they were intended to be given, as informal, non-statutory guidance to companies, and they want them to be statutory guidance obligatory on the Government.
I object to this. In spite of the encyclopaedic erudition about dividends, scrip issues and the like, the only issue between those who support the Amendment and me is that although we both want the guidance to be effective I want it to be effective in the form in which it was issued—the Press guidance form— and they want it to be statutory.

Mr. Emery: How, then, do we stop the hon. Gentleman from altering the guidance and the rules at any time he wishes? Is that the power he wants?

Mr. Lever: Certainly. The only point of difference is that the hon. Gentleman wants to freeze in statutory form what were intended as Press statements. One objection to that is that they were not drafted in proper language for a statute, but in the informal language most convenient for clearing up these matters in a Press statement. Second, we want to make the policy flexible and helpful to industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "HOW?"] On scrip issues, for example.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, far from complimenting us on our flexibility, seemed to try to score what I thought were meritricious party points simply because the Government were responsive to the needs of industry. I can see that from their political point of view it is undesirable that the Government should be flexible and understanding of industry's needs. Perhaps that is why they seek to pin down the Government in this rigid way, and would not allow them the helpful flexibility already in evidence and recognised by the City in the operation of the policy.
They oppose a dividend restraint policy and say that they think that it will be a great disaster, but they tell us how to operate it rigidly rather than flexibly. I hope that they will forgive the Government for not thinking that it is immediately obvious that those who hate the

dividend restraint policy—who, indeed, seem opposed to any policy of restraint on dividends or any other incomes— are hardly qualified to guide us, however well intentioned they are, in the successful operation of dividend policy.
The narrow point between us is whether we should incorporate it in rigid statutory form or leave it in flexible Press guidance form. I prefer the latter course, and advise the House to reject the Amendment. I am sure that hon. Members opposite are acting with the best motives in the world and do not seek to wreck the policy, but want to help us and want the policy to be a great success even though they do not like it. However, I must reject the Amendment.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: One of the differences between the two sides of the House probably concerns our interpretation of "flexible". As defined by the Financial Secretary, it means confusing, uncertain and baffling. As one who has on occasion to advise on these matters, I can tell the hon. Gentleman of the enormous amount of confusion and unnecessary work and concern caused by putting out something, then chopping and changing it, and putting it in a vague way so that one can back the horse either way. This sort of thing makes things extremely difficult for those in industry. The Financial Secretary wondered why we did not praise him for withdrawing the business about scrip issues. To make the announcement about scrip issues was such absolute nonsense that surely he does not expect us to praise him when he withdraws it.
I wish to raise three points on the new Schedule. First, the "flexible" Press statement referred to the exclusion of unit trusts from the dividends scheme. The Bill makes no reference to the exclusion of unit trusts. The Schedule does exclude unit trusts. The Press statement also referred to investment trusts, close companies and subsidiary companies. The Bill excludes investment trusts. There is a later Amendment concerning close companies. Why is there no reference in the Bill to the exclusion of unit trusts and wholly-owned subsidiary companies?
In Committee, I believe that the Minister gave an undertaking that authorised


unit trusts, as defined under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1958, would not be subject to any limitation on the distribution of income. Would the Financial Secretary confirm that? Secondly, will he confirm that there will be no necessity to apply for consent to the distribution of the income of a wholly-owned subsidiary company to its parent company? Surely there can be no argument against excluding from the requirement to get consent the distribution of wholly-owned subsidiary companies which were excluded in the Press statement.
Thirdly, the Schedule makes only vague reference to a major omission from the Bill, the lack of provision for making a greater distribution when share capital is increased by share issue, rights issue or conversion. The question of whether dividend can be raised in this context is to be left to the discretion of the Minister. The City of London cannot operate in such an atmosphere of uncertainty as to whether, when a company wishes to raise new capital, it can do so only with the right hon. Lady's consent and as to whether she will or will not agree to a greater distribution. In the interest of commercial certainty and to get away from inflexibility and confusion, the criteria should be spelt out.

Mr. R. Carr: We have come to expect humour and courtesy from the Financial Secretary, but he was not running true to form—indeed, was unusually snappetty —when trying to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, to limit the scope of the debate. He has not had to take part much in our debates on the Bill—certainly not as much as other hon. Members opposite or we.
On so many occasions on the Bill we have exposed the fact that the Government either cannot draft their intentions or are trying to draft the undraftable. Now we have another instance where they have rushed in with a new form of control without having thought out fully in advance the sort of rules companies are expected to conform to, let alone the rules themselves.
We still do not know where we are. For example, the Under-Secretary made no attempt to answer the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), who

pointed out that the Press statement by the Treasury referred to two previous years whereas the Bill, in Clause 6(4)(b), gives it power to take any previous year. Here is a conflict. It underlines the basic need for the Amendment, which would write in proper and firm rules which companies could see as the law by which they are supposed to abide. We believe that this a wrong attempt, but if the Government insist on making it they should try to do so justly and to give some certainty to companies throughout the country.
The Financial Secretary recommended the rejection of the Amendment because he thought that the whole concept was wrong. I thought for a moment that he was about to argue that it was wrong in concept that there should be the sort of certainty which we have normally come to expect in the law, but he did not go as deep as that; he merely said that he thought that the concept was wrong. He said that the Treasury Press statement was loosely and flexibly worded and not suitable for statutory form.
But neither are the other criteria in the famous White Paper, Cmnd. 3590, and yet that White Paper has been imported by the Government into the Prices and Incomes (General Considerations) Order of which paragraph 1(2) says, in specific words:
The Interpretation Act 1889(d) shall apply for the interpretation of this Order as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament and as if for the purposes of Section 38 of that Act this Order were an Act of Parliament.
This slickety slackety wording, which the Financial Secretary says is not suitable for statutory form, is suitable when it suits the Government.

Mr. Harold Lever: The quality of the drafting of the White Paper is a matter of opinion, but it was drafted with the intention that it would be incorporated into the Statute. The Press statement was not drafted with the intention that it should be incorporated into a Statute and, consequently, the language used is not suitable for incorporation in a Statute.

Mr. Carr: Opinions may differ about how slickety slackety one bit of language is compared with another, but those of us who have had to live with the White Paper and study it, have found it in many respects as ambiguous as the Treasury


Press statement and in some respects even more ambiguous. But that does not go to the heart of the matter. The hon. Member who sits for one of the Harrow constituencies—I must not upset my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) by giving the wrong constituency—disagrees. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman fails to realise the exceptional forbearance of the Opposition.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman fails to observe the extraordinary forbearance of myself and my hon. Friends in listening to his pompous phrases coming slowly across the floor in the early hours of the morning. Will he for goodness' sake get to the point with some briskness, and get on with it?

Mr. Carr: I am not stopping the hon. Gentleman from leaving the Chamber. Perhaps many of my hon. Friends would be delighted if he did.

Mr. Roebuck: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be glad if I left the Chamber, but, unlike many of his hon. Friends whom we do not often see here, I am here to do my parliamentary business. The right hon. Gentleman is boring the House and not getting to the point, and I urge him to get to the point with some rapidity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we can come to the Amendment.

Mr. Carr: It was not I who was getting away from the Amendment; it was the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck). He talks about doing his parliamentary duties; perhaps he will deliver an exemplary speech of shortness, sharpness and crispness, getting to the point, and so on, and supporting—and this has been one of the notable absences from the debates of the last few days— the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that honours are even now.

6.0 a.m.

Mr. Carr: The point which we are making is that the concept of the Amendment is that the Government should stop governing by edict. We ought to try to obtain from them, since this is to be

the law, some precision by which companies can be guided. My hon. Friend quoted a number of examples by which he showed that there appeared to have been lack of uniformity and certainty in the way in which dividend control had already been operated. No doubt hon. Members noticed an article in The Times of 13th June headed, "Over the dividend barrier", which explains at some length why many companies have been allowed to exceed the new ceiling on dividend increases. Although many of these excesses were explainable by the fact that they were due to commitments entered into before Budget day, as the article shows, there were others where this is nothing like as certain, and in the penultimate paragraph the article says that it is hard to see why these cases fell on the right side and others on the wrong side.
If we are to have dividend control, there should be more definiteness and certainty so that companies can know where they stand and so that there can be more assurance of fairness in treatment as between one and another. But this is the concept, not the draft. If, as the Financial Secretary says, the Schedule is too loosely worded, it may be an argument for not accepting the Schedule, but not against the concept. We think that a suitable Schedule should be in the Bill and if the drafting is wrong, may we ask that the Treasury draftsmen as opposed to the Press officers, introduce a suitable Schedule?

Mr. Harold Lever: One disadvantage of accepting that request is that once it is enshrined in a Schedule, we would not be allowed to make any kind of concession favourable to companies.

Mr. Ridley: I should like to touch on the point about flexible operation. Dr. Castro and General Franco operate flexible constitutions not bound by the rule of law and put anyone they wish into prison without necessarily specifying crimes committed. Claiming flexibility as a great virtue without departing utterly from the rule of law is something which the hon. Gentleman will see is palpably thin.

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order. Is it not right that the hon. Gentleman needs the leave of the House to speak again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not on Report stage of a Bill that has been to a Standing Committee.

Mr. Ridley: The 1966 Act had the original Schedule embodying the Declaration of Intent on Productivity, Prices and Incomes and the Financial Secretary said that he found its drafting acceptable, but the drafting of my suggestion not acceptable. The draft of the original Schedule 2 of the 1966 Act read:
The figure for the growth of the economy between 1964 and 1970, which is being assumed in the preparation of the Government's plan for economic development is 25 per cent.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman still finds the drafting of that acceptable.
The Financial Secretary's brilliant argument, the cut and thrust of debate and the defence he has put up, has convinced me that the Treasury's guidance on this matter is absolutely useless. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Schedule.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is the Amendment which is before the House.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 65, in page 6, line 21, at end insert:
( ) The Treasury shall not withhold their consent under this section to the doing of anything by a company, if it is made to appear to the Treasury—

(a) that the company is a close company for purposes of Part IV of the Finance Act 1965; and
(b) that the action proposed to be taken by the company does not go beyond that which is likely to be required if there is not to be, within the meaning of section 77 of that Act, a shortfall in the company's distributions for an accounting period (any operation of section 77(4) in relation to the restrictions imposed by this section being for this purpose disregarded).—[Mr. Hattersley.]

Mr. Tom Boardman: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 6, line 28, at end insert:
(8) This section shall not apply to ordinary dividends which shall be payable after the end of the year 1969.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are taking Amendment No. l18, in page 19, line 35, leave out paragraph 4.

Mr. Tom Boardman: There is a misprint in Amendment No. 67. It should read "page 6, line 31", not "line 28".
The purpose of the Amendment is to cut down the dividend freeze which, under the present provisions of Clause 6 and the provisions of Schedule 3, paragraph 4, can extend for a period of five years. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will take note of these dates because they relate to an issue upon which there was some initial dispute in Committee. With great difficulty we eventually extracted the concession—or "confession" perhaps would be the right word—that in the circumsatnces I quoted there would be a dividend freeze operating for five years.

Mr. Hattersley: Might I correct the hon. Gentleman now, because we have been over this many times. The concession or agreement which the hon. Gentleman obtained in Committee was that if a company insisted on operating in such a way that it did not pay a dividend for a full year after the end of the statutory freeze then it could so contrive its affairs to make the freeze appear to operate for five years. That is not the same point which I know that he is about to make.

Mr. Boardman: Perhaps I might take the hon. Gentleman through the story, because it has been rather a sad one. I put forward a certain proposition in Committee in the early stages and I was told that it was incorrect. I was told that the advice obtained by the hon. Gentleman was different.

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) to be reading the Fulton Report on the Civil Service while we are debating these important matters?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As long as the hon. Member is reading something that is relevant to the debate, it is in order.

Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order. May we know what relationship the Fulton Report on the Civil Service has to the matter we are now discussing? I am wondering, in my ignorance, what relevance the Fulton Report has to the Amendment we are discussing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The practice is only to rule out the reading of newspapers in the House.

Mr. Boardman: I will start with my original proposition because, with the Financial Secretary present with his great knowledge on these matters, we may get a speedy answer.
I took as my proposition a company whose year ended on 25 th December, and which declared and paid its dividend at the end of September and I asked whether the dividend would be frozen from September, 1967, until September, 1972. The Under-Secetary tried to preempt my bid by saying that perhaps the company could do something else and alter its dividend pattern. Of course it could, but I spelled out the normal position of a company paying one dividend a year on that date and asked whether its dividend would be frozen from September, 1967, to September, 1972, a period of five years.
When I first put that proposition to the hon. Gentleman he denied that that would be the position, and so that there shall be no doubt about it, perhaps I might quote what he said:
The best advice which is available to me —and the Committee will understand what it means—also disagrees with his analysis of five years.
It is clear from that that on the facts which I gave the hon. Gentleman and his advisers considered that my interpretation of the Clause and the Schedule was wrong.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Boardman: Hon. Gentlemen should not get too excited, because later it was conceded that my interpretation was right. If that is not so now, I want to know what the position is. The hon. Gentleman said:
If the hon. Gentleman wants a date for the company he hypothesised it would be for the year ending 26th December, 1970."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 13th June, 1968, c. 804–5.]
I returned to the matter at the eighth Sitting, having given the hon. Gentleman the facts in writing so that there could be no misunderstanding about the dates, and so that we could get a clear and frank confession that there would be a 5-year limitation on dividends. The hon. Gentleman said:
I think that two substantial points emerge. The second one I will try to concede. The choice of 26th December was a peculiar choice, and it was a date chosen by mistake. I can only attribute it to my morbid preoccupation

with my own birthday."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 18th June, 1968, c. 1113.]
That happened to be the date which I had chosen without the happy knowledge that it was the hon. Gentleman's birthday. I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman for having been born on Boxing Day. I make no complaint about the hon. Gentleman misunderstanding the position, but there was complete contusion on the part of the Government about the period of dividend freeze. There was a good deal of, if I say evasion I do not mean it in any dishonourable way, or perhaps I should say a good deal of ducking the issue during the exchanges at the end of the sitting.
6.15 a.m.
At one stage the hon. Gentleman did say this was a matter which perhaps he would expect to be brought up on Report. He said:
I say in all genuine humility that it may well be that he is right and we are wrong. If that is the case, I am sure that he will want to return to it in much greater detail and with much greater force on Report. At the moment, I am unable to understand the logic which leads him to that conclusion ".
That was the five-year freeze. The Undersecretary went on—
I understand perfectly well what he means about the company whose financial year ends on 25th December, 1969, so that the company might be subject to an overlong postponement of increases— ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 13th June, 1968; c. 804.]
That is the point I have been making, perhaps at more length that is necessary at this hour of the morning—that there is a period of dividend freeze in the case I have quoted which would last for five years. This is assuming that the company keeps to the same dividend pattern. It is, of course, possible that the dividend freeze could be advanced by a certain amount by the payment of interim dividends in the last year, but to pay an interim dividend in the last year, during the fifth year of the freeze, might distort the dividend policy of the company.
It is not always wise to pay an interim dividend in the case of a company which has established the practice of paying it at the end of the year. It may be that the cash flow is such that there is one time of the year when the dividend can appropriately be paid. So I stress again that we have this period of five years.
The Under-Secretary said in Committee that I had taken an exceptional example. Of course I did—that of a company whose year ended on 26th December and which paid its dividend the following September. But I also put to him the perfectly conventional pattern of a company whose year ends in September and which pays its dividend at the end of the following March. That is a pattern which I think: he will find applies to about 25 per cent. of companies in this country, and if one takes that company one gets exactly the same result of the five-year dividend freeze So it is not a matter of taking an extreme and absurd example in illustration.
The object of the Amendment is to shorten the period of freeze. It proposes that the dividend declaration made after the end of 1969 will be unrestricted. Of course it has been stated that although one ends dividend limitation at the end of 1969 the pattern of companies' payments of dividends are such that it would not mean that every company paid increased dividends on 1st January, 1970. It may be that companies who had stored up dividends up to the end of 1969 might pay higher dividends in 1970 than would otherwise be the case. I accept that this is an argument for not fixing a firm date and saying that all restriction ends at the end of December, 1969. I accept that it might result in a sudden flood of dividends in that period.
But there is somewhere between that risk and the long-term freeze going on until the end of 1972, in some cases, which would do justice to the needs of the incomes policy—if any justice should be done to it, and which would meet the point of companies wishing to make further distributions. Various Amendments were tabled on this point. The one selected is that which provides for payments to be made after the end of the year 1969. This will mean that in respect of companies whose year ends after 1969 and who pay their dividends in March, June, or any time during 1970 there will be a phasing-in or phasing-out of dividend restraint during 1970. That is acceptable.
The evil of dividend restraint is that the companies which have the cash to pay the higher dividend will store it up. It is the inefficient companies that will benefit—the companies that are accumu-

lating money. The efficient companies, which are using all their money and wish to raise new capital, will suffer. Companies under dividend restraint will have great difficulty in raising new capital and carrying out the necessary expansion.

Mr. Hattersley: This has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Boardman: The Under-Secretary says that this has nothing to do with the Amendment. Of course it has, because the longer the period of restraint the more severe the problems caused by companies accumulating cash where it is not needed and the more difficult it is for the more efficient companies to raise the cash.
I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, which will cut down the period of restraint to the end of 1969.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the subsection that the hon. Member seeks to have inserted in the Bill is subsection (8), I take it that the line will be line 38 and not line 31, as he suggested.

Mr. Boardman: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I intended to say line 38.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member quoted copiously from things that I said on numerous occasions in Committee, including such verbal courtesies as "I put forward this point with all humility". If he holds such matters as that against me I shall have to begin speaking in a way that is almost as didactic as his. We have gone over and over again the question whether dividend restraint can be applied to an individual firm for five years. When he put the point to me in writing it allowed me to understand it. But I can say no more now than when he allowed me to intervene in his original speech.
The provisions of the Bill enable restraint to be applied for four years and one day. If he cites the example of a firm which is likely to pay its final dividend for the last year of restraint within a few days of the end of the fourth year and asks the House to hypothesise that such a firm exists and that having paid its dividend for the final year it discovers three days afterwards that it is not covered by the restraint but goes


on for 362 days without paying a dividend for the year on which no restraint is imposed, the firm will have been suffering from some sort of restraint for five years. I say again that for 360 days or so out of that period of five years that restraint will be entirely voluntary. It will be exercised because the firm chooses to make no interim dividend and for the fifth of the five years that is a situation so artificial as to warrant discussion not for the seventh, eighth, or tenth time—or whatever it happens to be.
The third point was that the hon. Member asked that the period of restraint should come to a sudden end at the end of 1969. I hope that he realises that if that happened and if it were possible for dividends to be declared immediately after that for the effective calendar year of 1969, he is asking that there should be no effective dividend restraint for that year because dividends paid in the early months of 1970 would have their real effect in the previous year. When we have restraints applying to prices and incomes, how he can urge by this contrivance that restraint should not apply to dividends, I do not understand. Well, I do understand because he has said frankly on many occasions that he does not agree with the policy of dividend restraint, but anyone who does must accept that to reduce it in the way he suggests would take it out of line with the other parts of the policy. That is why I am sure that my hon. Friends will wish to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7

FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS, DIRECTIONS AND REGULATIONS

Mr. Hattersley: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 6, leave out lines 42 to 46.
This Amendment is not so much to meet the fears expressed in Committee by some hon. Members opposite as the apprehensions and misapprehensions of some hon. Members opposite. Since it raised doubts in the minds of hon. Members who clearly understood the working

of the market as well as hon. Members in the Committee, we took the point that the same fears, although groundless, might develop in other places. Since the object we set was the simple, clear and precise definition of those areas in which we wish to make dividend restraint, we felt this Amendment to be necessary to make sure that the misapprehensions should not be duplicated in other places.
Originally our powers to prescribe companies subject to dividend restraint were not only very wide because of the existence of one phrase, but we went on to give examples of companies which might be prescribed. This aroused extraordinary fears, such, for instance, as that our ability to prescribe according to geographical situation might be used arbitrarily as part of the policy. Since we wanted to prove those fears groundless, we accepted that this phase could be easily replaced by a simple designation. I hope that the Amendment meets the point and ends the fears which were so dramatically expressed in Committee.

Mr. R. Carr: I thank the Under-Secretary for once again paying attention to a point we raised in Committee. He has explained that he has done this because he wished to set at rest fears which he felt were grotesque and groundless. I shall not take up that point at this time, but at least we made the point and in the end the Government felt that these words were not necessary. So we have shortened the Bill. That is a service to remember.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

OFFENCES

6.30 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I beg to move Amendment No. 74, in page 7, line 25, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House at the same time to discuss the following Amendments: No. 75, in line 38, leave out 'person' and insert 'company'.
No. 76, in line 42, leave out from 'which' to end of line 44 and insert:
'shall not exceed the amount by which the dividend paid exceeds the amount authorised under the provisions of this Part of this Act.'


No. 77, in line 44, at end insert:
'or if a body corporate shall not exceed two thousand pounds'.

Mr. Lewis: I confess that I can think of other, more pleasant, scenes to be surveying at half-past six in the morning than Members of the Treasury Bench sitting amid the debris of yesterday, which looks like a mixture of dividend stubs and Green Shield stamps. It is particularly depressing to be sitting here for all these hours debating only the restrictions imposed by the Bill. Our efforts would have made some sense had we been talking about increasing dividends, since if they increase it means that industry is doing well, and if industry is doing well it means that the country must be doing well, too.
We are debating a penal Clause. Although I will not make the speech that I had prepared—although I would feel justified in keeping hon. Members for a considerable time on this important issue —it is worth considering the genesis of the Clause. It was mentioned in the Civil Defence Act, 1939, but I am not sure whether it appeared in earlier legislation. From one's experience of Committee work in the House, one sees various provisions cropping up from time to time in later Acts. It is as though the Parliamentary draftsmen say, "We need a Clause to deal with this matter. Let us pull a Section out of that Act and use it in this. Bill." The whole thing is rather like a jigsaw puzzle. That has obviously happened in this case. The Clause appeared as a Section of a previous Measure, and it was lifted.
That being the genesis of the Clause— the provision was no doubt necessary just before the outbreak of war—we must consider whether it is applicable today. At the time of the 1939 Act people had to be told to do the things that the members of the Armed Forces were expected to do, anyway. I doubt whether this type of provision, and certainly subsection (3), is justified in a Bill of this kind. Although it may have been used in other Measures passed since the war, to include it in this Bill is giving a double ducking to directors, managers and secretaries of companies.
No similar penalty appears in the 1956 Act. It goes much further than the penalty imposed on trade union officials,

who are not really penalised at all. The 1966 and 1967 Acts impose penalties on unions, but union officials are excluded. Is this provision, and particularly subsection (3), necessary in view of the present company law. The Companies Act and Palmer's Company Law state clearly the well-known principle that
…a principal answers for the act of his agent in the course of his master's business.
As things stand, directors and company secretaries are covered in that when they are prosecuted, they are prosecuted for their companies. The Clause goes further and says that not only the representative of the company shall be prosecuted, but that "…the company shall be guilty of the offence" as well.
That is what we object to. We think that it goes too far and is not justified. At a different time of day I could argue this much more forcefully. We are inclined to think that it is partial because it is vindictive. To get co-operation from companies, and I have no doubt that the Treasury will get co-operation—there is every indication that it is doing so—it is not very helpful to have Clauses of this kind. To act against a company is one thing, but to act against individuals is quite another thing.
The Financial Secretary will know that this does not apply to close companies. In theory it probably does, but it cannot apply to them in practice because they are directed to pay dividends. The Bill does not restrict them in the dividends they pay. The Clause cannot, therefore, be directed at directors of private companies. It is aimed at directors, company secretaries and managers of public concerns.
Do the Government imagine that directors of large public corporations, some of which now have Government investment and all or most of which have investment by large insurance companies, unit trusts and even trade unions, will connive and attempt to hoodwink the Treasury and act in such a criminal way as to make them, under the Clause, liable for prosecution, as well as their companies?
That is our case. The Government should make a concession. They have not made many concessions to this side of the House. As this provision has not


appeared in any previous Bill, I hope that the Financial Secretary will say that if he cannot do something today, he will reconsider it. The prices and incomes policy would not lose by taking at least part of this penal Clause out of the Bill.
Amendments No. 76 and No. 77 are probing Amendments. I gather that, in Committee, the Minister said that there was a limit to the fine on companies. There is no indication of any limit to the fine when one reads Clause 8. We are against an unlimited fine. We therefore seek to limit it. My Amendment would limit it on the basis of the dividend which has been paid, so that no firm should be liable to a fine greater than the amount paid which should not have been paid. Amendment No. 77 would impose a limitation of £2,000. We would like to know from the Financial Secretary whether there is a restriction in the Clause and that, if there is a limitation, this will be clear to the courts, in which event I have no doubt that Amendments No. 76 and No. 77 will be unnecessary.

Mr. Harold Lever: I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. It is not thought likely that a significant number of directors or officers of companies will infringe these provisions in a manner that will render them liable to criminal proceedings.

Mr. Lewis: In that case, why bother to have them in?

Mr. Lever: A great deal of our criminal law is intended only to deter a tiny minority of malefactors and, if necessary, to punish them. It does not by any means imply, because we have punishments for drunken motorists, that this is a slur on all motorists. The punishment is intended to take effect only on the drunken. This punishment is directed only against those directors who connive at, neglect, or consent to the supplying of false information. Even there, the protection is inserted that no prosecution can take place without the consent of the appropriate Law Officer.
It is not at all unusual in legislation of this kind to make provision that, where an offence can be committed by a company and where a director or officer of the company is proved to have

connived at, consented to or been a party to the offence, the onus of proof is on the prosecution, not merely to show that the company committed the offence, but that the director or officer participated in this way in connection with the offence. This is not unusual, nor specially punitive, nor penal. It is appropriate, as it is an offence qua the company, that any of its officers should be personally liable if they are participating in committing the offence and are proven so to have been in circumstances which would persuade the appropriate Law Officer to give permission for a prosecution to be brought.
The hon. Gentleman must not make heavy weather of this. There is no penal intent. There is no great suspicion. On the contrary, we are quite satisfied that the overwhelming majority of company directors will be scrupulously honest in the supplying of information. I am not revealing any Treasury secret when I say that we almost never make any kind of investigatory check to see whether we have been told the truth: it is so taken for granted in general that it is so.

Mr. Lewis: I hope the Financial Secretary notices that under subsection (3) an officer of a company is guilty of an offence if he neglects to do something. He does not have to do something positively. He can be liable if he is merely neglectful.

Mr. Lever: He could be liable if he was guilty of neglect which procured a false statement. This simply means that he must take responsibility for the company's act in these terms. Without this provision, any company director would be entirely free of responsibility if he merely said, "I did not trouble myself at all to see whether the information was false or true". This simply imposes upon him an obligation well recognised at common law that, when a statement is being issued on which people are being invited to rely, an indifference to whether it be true or false is fraud. The hon. Gentleman will agree that it can be said of almost all company directors that they would not issue a statement on which they know the Treasury will act and be indifferent to whether it was true or false. It is that sort of matter that is dealt with in the Clause.
I urge the hon. Gentleman to believe that nobody is seeking any kind of penal distrust of company directors. These are the kind of provisions which have been incorporated in legislation passed by other Governments in very similar wording in relation to the supply of information, such as in the Depositors Protection Act. The additional safeguard here against any foolish plunging into prosecutions is provided for, in that the Law Officer must give his consent before a prosecution can be brought. I should be very surprised if any such prosecutions took place. It is a normal safeguard for protecting the character of the information that is supplied.
6.45 a.m.
It has been suggested that we ought to limit the power of the court to fine limited companies by laying down a maximum. Again, it is not uncommon in matters possibly involving sums of great magnitude to leave it to the court to fix the fine on a body corporate. The Government will not fix the fine. The court will do it. One could not accept as suitable a fine of, say, £2,000 when the dividend in question might involve several millions of pounds. It is not in the interests of either party or of industry itself to fix the penalty at a low level and so invite anyone to think it expedient to defy the law. I emphasise that it is not the Government who will fix the fine; it is the court. The hon. Gentleman need not fear that excessive penalties will be inflicted in the unlikely event of prosecutions of this kind. In any event, all the usual processes of appeal and the rest would be available.
I invite the House to say that it is not wrong to provide that company directors should take responsibility for the truth of statements which are made, and it is not wrong that the court should have discretion to make the fine fit the offence in the case of corporate bodies, though not in the case of individuals. There is no intention of a penal or suspicious nature here. Rather the reverse. We wish to continue accepting at face value statements made on these complex matters with the minimum of check, and it is right that there should be this provision as a sort of long-stop to fall back on, to encourage the Government to continue to accept confidently, and rightly so, the statements supplied by our limited companies.

Mr. Ridley: I was not satisfied by the hon. Gentleman's treatment of Amendment No. 76, which would set a maximum to fines and make them correspond to the amount of the excess dividend paid. The Amendment embodies a good principle. These are not offences for which unlimited sentences are appropriate. They are not crimes. There is no logic in the offences created. They are not offences against society, and they are not offences which half the people of this country regard as wrongdoing.

Mr. Harold Lever: Over half the Members of the House of Commons do.

Mr. Ridley: Over half the Members of the House of Commons are not representative of the people of this country.
There should be automatic penalties. These are offences like leaving one's car not at a parking meter, for which there is an automatic fine £2, or more if it is left longer than so many hours. The amount of the excess dividend paid should govern the amount of the fine. It would then be clear what the consequences would be. It might in some cases be worth paying the amount of the dividend. Again, it becomes a commercial consideration: one can go on if one thinks it worth while. That is a much better basis for the penal Clauses under the dividend control.
The Financial Secretary seemed to think that we should leave the penalty to the courts' discretion. I wonder whether we should be pleased if a court levied a crippling fine on a company— there is no limit under the Bill—and virtually sent it into liquidation. That might be not at all what the Government intended or anybody in the House envisaged or wished.
I am not sure that we should not think in terms of trying to make some sort of automatic sanctions in the sense I have described. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the principle of the Amendment for such offences, which are not crimes. Nobody feels any moral shame about increasing dividends just because there is an incompetent Labour Government mishandling our affairs. I am sure that even the Secretary of State for Wales, whom I see on the Front Bench, would not


blanch at doing such a thing if he had the opportunity. It is just that he would be caught out, and it would be tedious, rather like having one's car towed away. It is a nuisance, but nothing more. Criminal sanctions of this sort are totally wrong in such a Bill, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

RESTRICTION ON RENT INCREASES UNDER REGULATED TENANCIES

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment selected is Amendment No. 79, with which we may discuss Amendment No. 84, in page 9, line 21, leave out subsection 7 and insert:
(7) This section shall not apply to Scotland.

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order. May I seek further clarification on the books and documents that may be read during the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A short time ago I drew attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) was making a detailed study of the Fulton Report on the Civil Service.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. May I draw attention—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is outside the House, and I am dealing with a point of order anyway.

Mr. Roebuck: You ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it was possible for documents to be read which had some connection with the debate. I then said that I could not see the connection between the Report and the debate. Since then I have consulted Erskine May—in no sense to challenge your Ruling—and I should like to direct your attention to page 460, where it is stated under the heading, "Reading of Books, Etc.":
Members are not to read books, newspapers or letters in their places. This rule, however, must now be understood with some limitations; for although it is still irregular to read newspapers, any books and letters may be referred to by Members preparing to speak,

but ought not to be read for amusement or for business unconnected with the debate.
It is not part of my case that the hon. Gentleman is reading the Report for amusement. But I suggest, notwithstanding the great temptation to say that anything would be amusement after listening to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, that the Fulton Report has no bearing on any of our discussions now, and it is quite out of order for him to be reading it. I raise the matter out of my customary chivalry towards other Opposition hon. Members.

Mr. Emery: As the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) has not been here for the greater part of our debates on the matter he would be quite unable to judge what would or would not be relevant. If he would like to know how much prices and incomes and wages are relevant to the Report, I suggest that he starts to learn. There are specific references to them in the Report. If he presses me, I shall make a long and tedious speech on it later.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has not been the practice of the Chair to inquire into which official papers an hon. Member carries when he comes into the Chamber. Newspapers have been specifically ruled out. It is for the hon. Member to give his attention to the House, and the Chair has not inquired more fully than that.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have disposed of the point of Order. I think that the House will be happy to go on with the business.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I beg to move Amendment No. 79, in page 8, line 44, to leave out
'(and in Scotland sufficient evidence)'.
This is a consequential Amendment. The substantive Amendment is No. 84— page 9, line 21, leave out subsection 7 and insert:
(7) This section shall not apply to Scotland.
It is designed to have the effect of ensuring that the Clause, which provides for additional Ministerial supervision of regulated tenancies, shall not apply to Scotland.
I wish to make two brief general points by way of introduction. I welcome the


presence of the Minister of State, Scottish Office, whom I am glad to see has joined us for this debate and, I hope, for some subsequent debates. First, there is not in this Amendment or in any of the subsequent Amendments in my name or that of my hon. Friends anything which would oblige any owner of any type of property in Scotland to raise the rent on that property during the period covered by the Bill. Secondly, it is not a policy which 1 or any of my hon. Friends are suggesting that we should bring about a decline in the living standards of any of our constituents in Scotland by inducing an increase in rents at a time when wages and salaries are pegged by Government action. That is the policy of the Government, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that it is his strategy that living standards should decline. In so far as it applies to prices and wages, presumably it also applies to rents.. If the consequence of accepting Amendment No. 84 were to be that in some instances there were a decline in the standard of living of people, that is the Government's policy. It is certainly not the Opposition's policy.
We must ask whether, within the context of this highly controversial Bill, it is suitable that the rents of regulated tenancies in Scotland—and those cover all houses in Scotland in the private sector let at an annual rent of £200 a year or less, which embraces the vast majority of privately rented accommodation in Scotland—should be further controlled by Clause 9. I have nothing to say about the wisdom or otherwise of further controlling regulated tenancies in England. I will direct my arguments entirely to the difference in conditions prevailing in Scotland from those prevailing in England, which might lead one to feel that it was desirable that a distinction should be made in the incidence of Clause 9 between regulated tenancies north and south of the Border.
7.0 a.m.
First, I plead in aid the Secretary of State himself. Writing to the Prices and Incomes Board on 8th December, he said:
For historical reasons, the advice given to authorities in Scotland has followed different lines from that given in England and Wales.
His letter referred to local authority housing. Some of those same historical

reasons lead to different considerations applying in the private sector. The chief characteristic of housing in Scotland as compared with England is the relatively low level of rents and the dominant nature of the public sector. They are inter-related because low rents discourage the provision of private houses to let or sell. It is no coincidence that the low rent structure is accompanied, particularly in some of our big cities, by an alarmingly high proportion of old and unfit dwellings still in occupation.
With a low rent structure, incentives to renovation and renewal in the private sector are not present. Furthermore, the public sector is so large that the burden on the local authorities is much heavier than in England. We have to look at the desirable rent structure in Scotland with different criteria from those in England. It is important to recognise two other elements. First, earnings tend to be lower in Scotland than in England; secondly, if a family has grown accustomed to its housing taking a comparatively small share of its income, a sharp increase, though still to a level lower than in other parts of the country, will be a hardship.
It is self-evident that, if one is used to paying 20 per cent. of one's income on housing and is asked to pay 21 per cent., this may not be a serious hardship. But if one is used to paying 5 per cent. and then is asked to pay 10 per cent., although this is substantially less than 21 per cent., such a sharp increase can represent a hardship. We must bear these considerations in mind in application of the Clause to Scotland.
On the other hand, if we are ever to begin to tackle the acute housing problems of Scotland, we cannot afford to put further obstacles in the way of a gradual rise in the structure of rents, in the private as much as in the public sector—the emphasis being on "gradual".
It has to be remembered that what is proposed in Clause 9 is the super-imposition of a further stage of Governmental control on a situation which is already substantially controlled by the rent tribunals which are supposedly fixing fair rents in the first place. Therefore, if the Amendment were accepted, we would by no means be removing all


control over rent increases; far from it. We are saying that, whatever may be suitable for England within the context of the Bill, somewhat different considerations apply in Scotland and that this additional measure of control over a situation already controlled is not justified.
We are told that it is and has been the strategy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we should now experience a decline in our living standards in the months ahead. The Government's whole economic strategy must, therefore, be a further factor in our consideration of the Amendment.
This comparatively modest Amendment makes the simple point that conditions in the private sector of housing in Scotland are different from those in the private sector of housing in England, and that the additional controls to be applied to rents in England ought not to be extended to Scotland.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): While I do not accept some of the phrases of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), I grasp the essential nature of the case which he is trying to make. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary announced that the Government intended to make regulations under this Clause which would restrict increases in rent to 10s. a week for the first year and that where the new rent was not more than 10s. more than the old, the landlord would be able to collect the whole amount immediately. In essence, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Scotland should not be subject to this control, that in Scotland tenants in certain circumstances should be charged more than 10s. a week more in the first year.
His case for that is not that there are higher wages in Scotland, not that Scotland is to be exempted from the system whereby we shall see a rise in living standards in line with the increase in national production. He bases his case on the past, on our inheritance of bad housing. Of course we have a long tradition of low rents in Scotland and that has been so for more than 50 years. It is noticeable that in the years in which they were in power, right hon. Gentlemen

opposite did not do anything about that. The Rent Act, 1957, did not apply to the kind of houses about which the hon. Member is thinking and about which he has written to me. I have a certain sympathy for the landlords of those houses which have low valuations and were therefore not covered by the 1957 Act.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman should make it clear that our correspondence has been about not regulated but controlled tenancies, which do not come within the context of the Amendment.

Dr. Mabon: That is perfectly true. He has often advocated that we should extend regulated tenancies to controlled tenancies. That is fair. [Interruption.] The other way round? Yes. It is seven o'clock in the morning, but all hon. Members are with me.
I agree that improvement grants provided by previous Governments have failed to improve the value of the stock of houses in Scotland. We will have to do something about that although I am not in a position to make a statement now. The Rent Act, 1965, is beginning to improve the stock. That is why we introduced it and I think we should speed up the application of the Act. But we cannot disrupt the prices and incomes policy by excessive increases of one item of family expenditure in any one year. If 10s. a week is the ceiling for England and if Scottish wages are marginally lower, it seems to me to make nonsense of the policy to say in Scotland: "Let it rip" and not control the amount of the increase of the weekly rent in any one year.
I do not ask him to accept the whole prices and incomes policy on that basis, but one cannot just let one item go. I ask the House to accept neither Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 80, in page 8, line 46, at end insert:
(d) shall authorise all increases in rent on the grant of a certificate of fair rent consequential upon repairs improvements or conversions carried out to the dwelling house by the landlord.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): With this Amendment we can discuss the following Amendments:
No. 156, in page 9, line 27, at beginning insert:
'Subject to subsections (13) and (14) of this section'.
and No. 157, in page 11, line 45, at end insert:
(13) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any increase of rent in respect of an improvement which has been effected by a local authority and the improvement was completed after the commencement of this Act.
(14) For the purposes of this section 'improvement' has the same meaning as in section 17(1) of the Rent Act 1965'.
The Amendment was preshadowed by our discussions in Committee when there was a similar Amendment to draw the Government's attention to the unfair position of a landlord who may well have spent considerable sums in improving a residence and may be unable to pass on the whole or part of the cost by increased rent. In Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that there were two situations where this might happen. The first may be where the premises were empty when the work was carried out, and a certificate of fair rent was granted after the work was completed and then there was a letting. In such circumstances, we were informed that landlords would and should not be able to charge thereafter and that there was no need for special provision.
The other set of circumstances were where works were carried out after a tenant had taken the place and, in those circumstances, the Parliamentary Secretary promised—at col. 925 of the Standing Committee OFFICIAL REPORT—that regulations would be made to cover the situation or the increase would be permitted where improvements and conversions had taken place and a certificate of fair rent granted.
7.15 a.m.
There was also some rather inconclusive discussion concerning repairs which are mentioned in this Amendment. The discussion was concerned more with passing on a percentage of the cost of repairs to the tenant without regard to the grant of a certificate of fair rent. It may be that because regard was not had to that situation, that the repairs had justified the granting of a certificate of fair rent,

that the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would not be prepared to make regulations permitting increases in rents where repairs had been done.
The Amendment seeks to draw together these three factors—repairs, improvements and conversions—and to relate them purely to instances where a certificate of fair rent had been granted by a rent officer after the work had been done in a tenancy covered and controlled by the provisions of the Bill. Inasmuch as the Parliamentary Secretary has promised in part to make regulations covering this situation, we ask him to go one step further and to remove the situation at this stage beyond all doubt so that landlords and tenants alike will know precisely where they stand. We ask that this matter, which we are told will be a regulation, be brought forward and put in the Bill so that there is no need for the regulation to be made afterwards. We feel that the wording used here, subject to advice that the Minister may receive from his Parliamentary draftsmen, is sufficient to cover the position.
Amendment No. 156 is a purely paving Amendment. Amendment No. 157 is the substantive Amendment. This is an entirely new proposition which was not discussed in Committee. The Amendment seeks to bring a similar position into play regarding local authorities as we have been urging concerning housing in the private sector. It seeks to remove from the control of the Bill increases in rents where improvements have been carried out by local authorities. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows, there are many authorities up and down the country constantly modernising and carrying out improvements to their properties under their general powers of management under Section 111 of the Housing Act, 1957. There are such things as the provision of bathrooms where bathrooms have not previously existed. Normally when a council improves a dwelling there is negotiated or discussed with the tenant an increase in rent to cover the improvement which has taken place. The improvements vary to such an extent and are so numerous that it would seem to be extremely difficult to cover each individual variation by a blanket regulation.
It is therefore suggested—and this is something which the local authorities themselves desire—that this type of increase in rent should be taken out of the scope and operation of the Bill. We hope that this will commend itself to the Government, otherwise an unnecessarily onerous task will be placed on local authorities and on the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in trying to assess the increase which ought to be allowed in respect of these various conversions and improvements which local authorities undertake in the interests of. good management.

Mr. Frederick Silvester: It seems to me that the Amendment will enable the Government to take out of the incomes field something which will have an unfortunate effect on the more important long-term development of the housing policy which they are pursuing and which has received a good deal of support from this side of the House.
I should be out of order if I were to discuss housing policy, but one feature of it is relevant to this discussion. Over the years we have staggered from what hon. Gentlemen opposite would say was too much freedom on one occasion to what we on this side would say was too much restriction, but there is one area in which we were agreed we could make a step towards getting more realistic rents at a time when people would accept them, and that was when repairs and improvements were being carried out. These are continuous operations. They do not involve a sudden change in the whole housing and rents policies of large numbers of people at any time. It is a slow dribble during the year of properties being improved. It therefore seems unfortunate that as a backlash from the prices and incomes policy this change in the housing system should be affected. The Amendment will enable the occasions when improvements to houses are made to be excluded from the policy relating to increases in rents.
Perhaps I might briefly draw the attention of the House to the importance which the Government attach to this matter, and ask that the Amendment be given earnest consideration. In the White Paper, Old Houses into New

Homes, there is a survey of the stock of houses in the country. It shows that 70 per cent. of privately-rented properties are in need of repairs costing more than £125, and that 14 per cent. of such properties require repairs costing more than £1,000. In those circumstances, it is unreasonable to expect private landlords to put their money into carrying out repairs and conversions if they cannot at the same time have some increase in rent.
I do not believe that by accepting the Amendment the Government will materially affect their prices and incomes policy. The Amendment will permit them to continue their policy, without at the same time handicapping their much longer term aim on the housing front, which could continue during this period of price freeze. In Committee the Government said that they would go some way on this. I hope that the Minister will give us rather more than he hinted at in the past, and will accept the basis of the Amendment.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I am afraid that I must criticise the drafting of the Amendment, but there are points I want to make about it which go beyond mere drafting and raise some fundamental misunderstandings of the position.
First, I am referring to Amendment No. 80, which says
shall authorise all increases in rent on the grant of a certificate of fair rent consequential upon repairs improvements or conversions…
The whole point of a certificate of fair rent is that it is issued before the work has been done. The object is to enable the landlord to obtain, before the work is done, an indication of what the registered rent would be. Nor does it apply to repairs; it applies only to improvements and conversions. So to some extent, by including the word "repairs", the hon. Gentleman begs the important question he raises about bringing in repairs.
The position is, as the hon. Gentleman said, that in certain circumstances where there is in existence a contractual tenancy, or where the house is empty and new tenants are coming in, it would not come within the Act because the Bill only applies to the statutory period.


As he said, in those cases there would be no question of phasing, in the case of a certificate of fair rent it would normally be for improvements; it is not likely that there would be a surviving sitting tenant in the case of conversions. In these cases we will, as I said in Committee, make regulations covering them and exempting them from phasing.
On the general question of repairs, I think there is a great difference between repairs which are a continuing liability on the landlord and which should be carried out as part of the duties of a landlord over a time, and improvements which are once for all and, by their very nature, something new which has not happened before. It would create anomalies between one landlord and another if the landlord who had kept his house in repair, perhaps at some sacrifice, was not able to set off the repairs because they had already been done, and the landlord who effected repairs would be able to set them off against the phasing of the rent. I think I cannot meet the hon. Gentleman at all on the question of repairs.

Mr. Rossi: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I wonder whether he would refer to his own words in the Standing Committee, where he did say
Where work to be done is subsequently done,
and he was referring here to improvements and conversions
the landlord brings to the rent officer the evidence of the work that has been done. The rent officer satisfies himself that it has been properly done, approves the certificate and registers the rent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee F, 17th June, 1968; c. 925.]
It would seem from that wording that the certificate can be granted after the work has been done, and should not be granted before the work has been done as has just been suggested by the hon. Gentleman Would he comment on that apparent inconsistency between his two statements, one in the Standing Committee and one here this morning?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, the hon. Member has made one speech. There must be some limit to interventions.

Mr. MacColl: If the inconsistency is is between what I said now and what I said in Committee it would not surprise me. I would not pretend that I do not

occasionally fall into inconsistency. But if one looks at Schedules 6 and 7 of the 1968 Rent Act, it shows that procedure for a landlord making application for a certificate is contingent upon certain works being done, and in the case of Schedule 6, upon producing evidence that the work has been done.
On Clause 10, I would draw the attention of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) to subsection (1) which provides that
subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by any directions of the Minister, it shall not be lawful for a local authority to charge in respect of any houses … rents exceeding the former rents
and so on.
Those conditions, exempting from the rent for the purpose of calculating the increase, could be used to accept money spent on improvements. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend to do this, and before the hon. Member says, "Why do you not put it in the Bill; why leave it to directions?" I should point out that my right hon. Friend is consulting local authority associations and the Greater London Council about what should go into those directions. We want to be sure that we have covered all the points. I have no doubt that this point will require to be covered.

7.30 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: We cannot be entirely satisfied with the Parliamentary Secretary's answer. These points are on a very narrow but important front. It is essential that we should continue to encourage landlords to make improvements to their houses and to convert older houses, and not to discourage them by not allowing them a return on the expenditure incurred in doing that.
These are like productivity agreements which allow an increase in wages. Here we are encouraging the owners of property to carry out improvements to their property. We should do everything we can in the Bill before it leaves this House, and we certainly need an assurance that if we are not right in our drafting of the Amendment the question will be covered in the Bill before it leaves another place.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the certificate of good repair came into


operation before the work was done. The owner of the property applies for a certificate on the basis that he intends to carry out improvements or the conversion of property, but he does not get the certificate until he has satisfied the rent officer that those improvements or that conversion have been carried out.

Mr. MacColl: He does not get the rent registered until the work has been carried out, but he has his certificate, which is a guarantee that he will get it registered when the work has been carried out.

Mr. Page: He gets the decree absolute when he has carried out the conversion or the improvements. The registered rent comes into operation when he has carried out the work.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the certificate of fair rent does not include anything for repairs. We had in mind to take into account cases where the rent is increased not only because of the improvements or the conversion but because of the state of repair of the property. In his decision of what rent to award the rent officer thinks not only of the improvements but the condition of the property.
It is possible that the rather narrow conditions of Clause 9 will apply in a number of cases where there is a sitting tenant. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that it is the intention of the Government to produce regulations which may cover the case of the landlord's having carried out improvements for a sitting tenant and having got his certificate of fair rent, after which he will be allowed by the regulations to charge that new rent without any phasing.
Considering the remarks of the Parliamentary Secreary, both in Committee and in the House, one cannot be certain that the regulations will encourage owners to continue to improve and convert property. That is why we should write this matter into the Bill by way of this simple Amendment to what is a narrow Clause —narrow because it applies only to the case where the rent is payable under a registered tenancy, during the statutory period of a registered tenancy, where it is payable in respect of a house which has a registered rent and where the rent being paid is less than the registered

rent. There must be very few such cases and we should do everything possible to encourage the improvement and conversion of property.
I can see no objection to Amendment No. 157, which would allow local authorities to charge a higher rent to take account of improvements and conversions which they make. We are not in these cases asking that rents should be increased for the same article, but only where the article has changed; when a house has been improved or converted into two units. Only when there is an entirely new article would the Amendment apply. We would rather have these matters embodied in the Bill than wait for the regulations to ensure that what we want is covered.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 82, in line 10, leave out from 'be' to"resolution" in line 11 and insert ' subject to affirmative '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 83, in line 10, leave out from ' instrument' to end of line 12 and insert:
'which shall be laid before Parliament after being made and shall expire at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which it was made unless during that period it is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Mr. Rossi: It would, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since the two Amendments taken together represent variations on the same theme, the theme being that we request the Government to alter the provision which requires the Statutory Instrument bringing into effect the regulations controlling rents to be subject to annulment pursuant to a Resolution of either House. We are asking that the Resolution be subject to affirmation by either House, so that in Amendment No. 82 we speak of affirmation simpliciter, while in Amendment No. 83 we place certain time limits to meet objections raised by the Parliamentary Secretary when the matter was discussed in Committee on the Question,"That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
In support of the Amendment I call in aid evidence given to the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation, reported


in the 1952–53 Committee Reports, Volume- 4. Paragraph 75 of the Report of that Committee reads:
Sir Alan Ellis, speaking with the authority and experience of the Senior Parliamentary Counsel, described to us the normal approach to the problem of choosing between the affirmative and the negative procedures. While he was unable to suggest any rigid principle which would govern the choice, he named three types of case in which it might be expected that the affirmative would be preferred,—

(1) He placed in the first class the powers which, when exercised, will substantially affect the provisions of an Act of Parliament, whether by altering its language, or increasing or limiting its extent or duration or otherwise.
(2) His second class was composed of powers to impose financial changes—such, for instance, as purchase tax orders.
(3) His third class consisted of cases of skeleton powers, where the parent Act fixes the purpose and leaves the whole substance of the law to be dealt with by subordinate legislation …."


It is our submission that we score on two points out of those three because, if one turns to subsection (4) of Clause 9, one sees that the Minister is asking for power by regulations to be able to adapt or modify the Rent Act, 1968. This falls well within the first class of case given by Sir Alan Ellis as requiring an affirmative procedure. These regulations will be altering the language or increasing or limiting the extent or duration or otherwise of an Act of Parliament. What Act of Parliament? The Rent Act, 1968, is a consolidating Act incorporating legislation going back to 1920. A number of Acts dealing with the substantive law of landlord and tenant have been considered by numerous Parliaments, their Lords spiritual and temporal and the Commons over these years, a policy carefully hammered out, a law firmly established and now to be amended at the whim of a Minister by regulation which it is proposed shall be subject only to negative procedure.
This is diametrically opposed to the advice given to this House by the senior Parliamentary Counsel in 1952. It is a matter which the Government should reconsider with the greatest possible care. The negative procedure means that the Minister makes a direction and Order by way of Statutory Instrument and, unless it is prayed against by an hon. Member, it becomes fully effective law. An hon. Member has only a very limited

time in which to pray against a Statutory Instrument under this procedure—40 days. If it is not reached by 11.30 at night, it cannot be discussed, or if discussion upon it is started before 11.30, then at 11.30 sharp that discussion must cease. The discussion can start only after the finish of Government business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot discuss the whole detail of affirmative and negative procedure on that Amendment. He is entitled to make his case as to whether it should be affirmative or negative procedure, but not to explain to the House the whole detail of the two procedures.

7.45 a.m.

Mr. Rossi: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am making a point which is of fundamental constitutional importance—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The argument is whether it should be one kind of procedure instead of another.

Mr. Rossi: My argument is that when the Government are seeking to modify or alter an Act of Parliament in the way they are doing in the Bill, they should give the House a full and proper opportunity of debating the amendment of the Act. The negative procedure does not permit that because, as I have tried to explain, the negative procedure only permits debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must not try to explain to the House the detail of the negative procedure.

Mr. Rossi: Then I will assume, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I must according to your Ruling, that the House is so fully cognisant of the procedure that it is unnecessary to discuss the matter.
I nevertheless press the Government, in amending an Act of Parliament, to use a procedure which coincides with and follows the learned advice which has been tendered to them. The advice applies not only to the circumstance that the Government are trying to amend an Act, but also where the legislation bringing into effect the new regulations is no more than a skeleton, leaving the substance to be dealt with by regulation. That was Sir Alan Ellis's third case. That is precisely what Clause 9 does. It is no more


than a skeleton on which the flesh of the regulations, which will contain the substantive provisions, is to be hung.
For that reason also, it is important that both Houses be given full and adequate opportunity to discuss the detailed legislation which is not before it, and which cannot be before it, because we have merely the skeleton or bare bones on which everything else is to be hung.
The Amendments are a plea that the Government should proceed in a democratic fashion when amending an Act of Parliament, when producing a Measure which is merely a skeleton, and that they should come forward with their regulations and give adequate opportunity for discussion by hon. Members when making a substantive alteration in an important part of our legal system in the law of landlord and tenant.
Amendment No. 83 deals with the time question. The reason for the Amendment being positive as an alternative arises from our discussion in Standing Committee, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was anxious to avoid the affirmative procedure because, he told us, there would be too great a gap between the passing of the Bill and the making of the Statutory Instrument and this would lead to difficulties from a legislative point of view. In Standing Committee, the hon. Gentleman spoke of the Statutory Instrument having to go to the Statutory Instruments Committee if it were dealt with by the affirmative procedure.
It is to attempt to meet that objection that we have framed Amendment No. 83, which requires that the Instrument
shall be laid before Parliament after being made and shall expire at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which it was made unless during that period it is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
There is, therefore, a period of 28 days at the most which is to be lost by the procedure proposed in Amendment No. 83. It nevertheless gives the House a full and proper opportunity of discussing delegated legislation of the kind which Sir Alan Ellis strongly urged should be brought before the House under the affirmative procedure.

Mr. MacColl: I speak with a certain amount of trepidation on this subject,

because I am conscious of being in the presence and under the baleful glare of two very distinguished Chairmen of the Statutory Instruments Committee. I would not want to say anything which in any way reflected on that very important and active body. I am not advancing this in any sense as a matter of great principle. There is no desire to make a further inroad into Parliamentary supervision of legislation. As I said in Committee, it is simply a practical question of the timing of the operation.
The problem arises from the fact that there is a freeze on. From the appointed day no rents can be raised, except in accordance with regulations. If regulations could be delayed, or if they came into operation and expired after 28 days, which would be the effect of the second of the two Amendments, it would put landlords in a very difficult position. It would be the landlords, not the tenants, who would suffer, because no increase in rents would be allowed. This is the first reason why it is important that the regulations should come into operation on the appointed day.
Under the affirmative procedure the regulations would have to be approved by the Statutory Instruments Committee in this House and by the Special Orders Committee in another place before they could come into operation. If we tried to get round that, we would be in trouble for trying to by-pass those bodies. If the regulations were to be subject to the negative procedure, they would equally come under the scrutiny of the Committee. There would be no way of avoiding that. This is one important reason why the affirmative procedure should not apply.
I presume that it is intended that the 28 days would be 28 sitting days. If they were not 28 sitting days, we might be in difficulties, because the regulations might come into operation at the end of this term of the Session and, if the 28 days included the Recess, we would be in great difficulties. That is one argument— and I think the most important and convincing argument—why the negative procedure must apply.
The second argument, which is a much more uncertain one, is that this is new legislation. It is temporary legislation, but it is new and fairly untried. It is


necessary to be able to adjust the regulations if we get them wrong in some respect. We may get them wrong in the interests of the tenant or of the landlord. Whichever it is, we want quickly to be able to adjust them. That is the reason for not having them within the Bill.
The third reason is that these are complicated matters which present difficulties in drafting. I did not mean to joke when I replied to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) in Committee after he had scolded me for having such an incomprehensible Clause 10. The complications arise from the difficulty of trying to put into the Bill something which, though we know what it means, is very difficult to define. The same difficulties would arise here.
It was said that a debate on a Prayer would continue only till 11.30. I do not pretend to be up Jo date on Parliamentary procedure, which seems to change with bewildering speed, but in the past, when I thought I understood how it worked, Mr. Speaker had power, if he thought a question had not been properly discussed, to allow it to be set down for another day.
I am not trying to knock another nail into the coffin of Parliamentary supervision. This is a purely practical consideration arising out of the special circumstance of the need to have the regulations in operation immediately the Bill is passed. It would do harm to landlords more than tenants if there were a gap. I hope, therefore, that the House will look upon this as an exceptional case and not try to make it into a great constitutional issue, accepting that, in these special circumstances, this is a reasonable way to proceed.

Mr. Graham Page: This is a constitutional issue, not just a practical question of timing. First, let me dispose of the Parliamentary Secretary's worry about the timing of the regulations. The second Amendment would give him opportunity to have his Statutory Instrument ready before the Bill obtains the Royal Assent; he can bring it into operation at the very moment the Royal Assent is given to the Bill. This is nothing new in a Prices and Incomes Bill. It was in the first one and in the second. The orders are ready when the Bill has received the Royal Assent, and they will

come into effect at once and be effective for 28 days, expiring at that point unless by that time they have received affirmation by Parliament.
If the hon. Gentleman is worried about the wording of the Amendment, I assure him that it comes straight from the Southern Rhodesia Act, which must be familiar to hon. Members owing to the course of an Order under that Act which came before Parliament recently. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the 28 days are sitting days, and his regulations would not expire in the middle of a Recess.
I had hoped that, instead of reading his brief and saying that this is a little practical matter, the hon. Gentleman would have spoken as a Parliamentarian, not as an administrator. He is asking the House to accept a breach of the convention of Parliament concerning subordinate legislation. The Select Committee on delegated legislation made its recommendations in 1952 on the basis of evidence given by Mr. Speaker's Counsel at that time. The convention is that, if a parent Statute sets out a mere skeleton of a scheme and leaves it to the Minister to produce the scheme, it should be done by an Instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. No matter that it may come into operation for a period of time —this is frequently necessary—it should be subject to affirmation by the House within 28 days.
8.0 a.m.
The other and more important point was that if the parent Statute gives the Minister power to alter an Act it should be done only by an Order which needs affirmation from both Houses. Subsection (3) is a typical skeleton scheme for setting out the exemptions to the restrictions on rents. Subsection (4) gives the Minister power to alter the Rent Act, 1968. This is a monument of legislation, covering innumerable Acts of the past half century. It seems to me to be arrogance for a Minister to take power to alter a Statute of that sort, to alter the clear conventions of Parliament in this respect, by a Statutory Instrument which is merely subject to the negative procedure.
The Minister said that he is not making any inroads into constitutional rights here. But he is, and it is a shocking


precedent which will no doubt be used in the future if it is allowed to go through. It is a breach of the conventions of the House over subordinate legislation. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept the Amendment here and now I hope that he will take further advice, read up the recommendations of the 1952 Committee, and comply with the expression of the conventions made by it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 10

RESTRICTION ON INCREASES IN LOCAL AUTHORITY RENTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment selected is Amendment No. 86, with which we may discuss Amendment No. 93, in page 11, line 6, at end insert:
'or unless the average standard rent after the proposed increase would represent less than 70 per cent. of the average historic cost per dwelling'.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I beg to move Amendment No. 86, in page 9, line 28, after ' Minister ', insert: 'and except in cases where the average standard rent charged by a local authority represented less than 65 per cent. of the average historic cost of houses of which the rents fall to be carried to the local authority's Housing Revenue Account'.
These are really two alternative propositions. I prefer Amendment No. 86, which would provide that in any case where the average standard rent charged by a local authority amounted to less than two-thirds of the average historic cost of its stock of houses the Minister's power to scrutinise and control rent increases proposed by it under the Clause would not apply.
Amendment No. 93 provides that in any case where the average standard rent amounted to less than 70 per cent. of the historic cost of a local authority's housing the Minister would be required to give favourable consideration to further proposals for rent increases which it might submit. Amendment No. 86 goes much further to release local authorities from the trammels of this iniquitous Bill, and that is why I prefer it.
If there is one thing that stands out a mile from the Prices and Incomes Board

Report on increases in local authority housing rents, Cmnd. 3604, it is that the structure of rents for council houses in Scotland is infinitely lower both absolutely and relative to the cost of housing than it is in England. I hold no brief for Mr. Aubrey Jones and his Board. I have a healthy disrespect for anybody who thinks he has an instant answer to any question regarding anything from the prices of a pinch of salt to the road to the moon. But in this instance at least, Mr. Jones and his Board have treated us to a blinding glimpse of the obvious.
The gospel according to Aubrey tells us that the estimated average rent of council houses in Scotland amounts to 18s. and in England to 37s. 9d. a week. The average council house rent in England is, therefore, rather more than double the average rent in Scotland. The reference is page 40 of the Board's Report. The gospel according to Aubrey further shows that among the 21 local authorities which the Board was told to examine, which include four in Scotland, the rate of increase in rents of council houses in recent years has been appreciably lower in Scotland than in England and Wales. For the past three years, the average increases were 10·9, 10·6 and 5·8 per cent. respectively in England and Wales and 8·3, 7·2 and 3·3 per cent. in Scotland. Therefore, not only are the rents of council houses in Scotland very much lower than in England and Wales, but in recent years the gap has been widening. This is the evidence which the Board produced
It is worth pointing out that over the past 30 years the local authority rents in terms of constant prices have fallen substantially in Scotland. A report in the Glasgow Herald of 14th June showed that there had been a fall of 6 per cent. in average council house rents in Glasgow over the past 30 years at constant prices, a fall of 15 per cent. in Aberdeen and a fall of 17 per cent. in Edinburgh. That is the situation regarding the structure of local authority rents in Scotland which this Clause would seek further to control.
I must refer briefly to what we might call the remedies according to Aubrey. Remedy No. 1, as laid down on page 27 of the Board's Report, reads as follows:
As a short term aim, standard rents should be fixed in relation to historic costs ".


This, in effect, is the short term aim which we seek to embody in the Amendment.
I turn to the table on page 17 of the Board's Report which compares average estimated historic costs per dwelling in the current year in the 21 authorities examined by Aubrey and his men with the average standard rents charged in those 21 authorities. This table makes clear that of all the authorities investigated, the gap between the standard rent and the historic rent was widest in Kirkcaldy where the standard rent amounted to 45 per cent. of the historic cost Only one Scottish authority—one which I happen to represent, Arbroath—ranked above the lowest percentage ranking in England, which was the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer According to either the 65 per cent criterion or the 70 per cent, criterion, Stretford would join the four Scottish burghs in ranking for special treatment under the Amendment —Stretford alone among the 17 English boroughs examined This is not just an arid arithmetical calculation, because what is not paid by council (house tenants must be paid by someone else In part, this means the taxpayer and in part the ratepayer.

Mr. Roebuck: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that council house tenants do not pay rates?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: If the hon. Gentleman, who does sometimes attend our discussions, will allow me to continue, I am coming to that point. Of course they are also ratepayers, as are tenants of private property. The point is that if local authorities are prevented from making increases in their rent structures which they believe desirable the whole body of ratepayers, including the council house tenants, must take the extra burden.
I refer for the last time to the Good Aubrey. Of the 21 local authorities investigated by his holy men, the four with the highest contributions by local ratepayers to housing were, not surprisingly, four in Scotland. The Secretary of State's Kilmarnock ranked top with more than two-fifths of its housing revenue coming from the rates, with Kirkcaldy, Kirkcudbright and Arbroath following in that order, closely followed by Barrow-in-Furness, the only English borough coming anywhere near.
Unless the Amendment is accepted, what the tenants in Scotland might gain in this Clause on the swings the ratepayers will lose on the roundabouts. I regard the attempt by the Government to place their sticky fingers in the market mechanism in the manner suggested by the Bill as iniquitous, but if they are determined to make fools of themselves and the House at least they should do it in a manner which treats all our electors with an equal degree of offensiveness. Unless they accept the Amendment they will be imposing more offensiveness on some than on others. There is no case for saying that council house tenants in Scotland should be allowed to escape the medicine of lower living standards to this extent—the medicine the Chancellor has prescribed for the nation—by this device, which transfers a part of the dose to add to the burden already borne by the ratepayers. It does not offer me any consolation to recognise that in some cases the tenants and the ratepayers are the same people. This is simply a question of equity in a most inequitable Bill and I therefore hope that the Minister of State will see fit to accept if not the first at least the second and more modest Amendment.

8.15 a.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that at least in his treatment of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and Mr. Aubrey Jones he has been consistently offensive. If he studies the report of his speech tomorrow, he will see that he rested a great deal of his case on some of the excellent work done by the Board, and done very rapidly, on this very difficult problem. The Bill, least of all the Clause, does not try to sort out historic housing economic problems. They are inheritances. The purpose of the Clause is to ensure that the size of unavoidable rent increases is kept within tolerable limits, having regard to the needs of the prices and incomes policy.
I accept that there are historic housing economic problems to be sorted out, but the Clause is not the vehicle for that. They must be solved over a considerable number of years and by a consistent policy of the Government, a policy on which the Government have tried to embark, as witness their Housing Acts


and the exhortations of Ministers from time to time about what should be done by local authorities. I do not accept that it is or could be the purpose of the Clause to limit the rate fund contribution or, as was suggested earlier, to fix a minimum standard rent.

Mr. Brace-Gardyne: If the hon. Gentleman studies the Amendments, he will see that that could not be their purpose. Their purpose is simply and solely to limit the right of the Government to intervene in the decisions of local authorities in specific circumstances when they themselves decide that the gap between a standard rent and the historic rent is so large that there should be a movement upwards.

Dr. Mabon: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to proceed, I was about to make a comment on his second Amendment, which he does not prefer, but which, in fact, comes nearer to the point. The graphs on page 17 of the Board's report make no pretence at accuracy and the footnote on that page explains how difficult it is to compare like with like. There are references to the high cost of land and the amount of work in progress and various other factors which vary from area to area. The hon. Gentleman made the mistake of referring to Stretford as the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fact, it is Birmingham, Stechford. That was only a minor inaccuracy, but it illustrated the point that while the position in Birmingham may be compared with that in Glasgow, one could hardly compare it with the position in, say Arbroath.
I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have castigated Mr. Aubrey Jones and then quoted him with relish and in the hope that they would carry conviction. The housing costs of local authorities vary widely from area to area according to factors such as the actual cost of building, the scale of the local authority's housing activities and so on, and it is unreasonable to assume that any given proportion of rent income and rate fund contributions are reasonable for all authorities. That blanket assumption should not be made.
I suggest that instead of quoting a bit of paragraph 85(i) he should quote all

of it or the final part. I turn his attention to paragraph 86 of the White Paper on page 28 which states:
We see rates as serving three functions.
It is within these functions that we are asking the authority to make a decision. On the second amendment, we are in Clause 10(6) providing that the Housing Ministers can take into account exceptional circumstances which could justify their consideration of fresh proposals for rent increases. There is specific provision for the Ministers to look at the situation which would meet the position of a local authority which had done its best to balance one factor against another and came to the Minister for guidance.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I beg to move Amendment No. 87, in page 9, line 28, after ' Minister ', insert:
'or except in cases where failure to apply rents exceeding the former rents would lead to termination of the resources element in the Rate Support Grant paid to local authorities in Scotland under the terms of Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 4(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966.'
There is a misprint for which I accept full responsibility through my handwriting. In the second line, "termination" should be "diminution". I think the Minister of State will realise that was the implication.
Hope springs eternal even at this hour although our expectations get lower as the clock advances. Of the three Amendments I have moved tonight this is the most modest and advances the proposition which must be regarded as the most indisputable. I hope the Minister of State will make us grateful for small mercies. The amendment advances a fairly complicated proposition which I will explain broadly. Behind it is the theme that it is inevitable that if council tenants' rents are kept down by this Bill ratepayers will suffer to a countervailing extent. It would be doubly improper in Scotland if ratepayers were made to suffer twice over.
For several years successive Governments, including this, have been trying to persuade local authorities in Scotland to reduce the deficits on their housing accounts. One method used has been to say that if the so-called notional rents


represented less than a certain proportion of the gross annual value of the House to that extent the exchequer grants they received would be cut back. Successive Secretaries of State have said to Scottish local authorities that they cannot tell them what rent to charge—although that is being changed in some respects—but if they insist on running up huge deficits by charging grossly uneconomic council rents they cannot look to the exchequer to bail them out. That, in crude terms, would describe what successive Governments, including this Government, have been doing.
The provision governing this situation at present is Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 4(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1966, which states:
Where for any year the actual rent income of a county council or town council is less than the council's notional rent income, the relevant local expenditure of the council shall be calculated for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule as if the council's notional rent income were substituted for the council's actual rent income.
The purpose of Amendment No. 87 is to lay down that in any case where a local authority in Scotland seeks to raise its rent incomes, because, if it does not, it will lose Exchequer grant, the Minister shall not have power to intervene, under Clause 10, in the raising of such rents.
The alternative and much weaker proposition in Amendment No. 96 is that if a local authority seeks to raise the rents of its council houses and the Government intervene under this Clause to turn the local authority's request down, and, because that request is turned down, the local authority stands to be penalised under the part of the 1966 Act which I have just quoted, then that part shall not apply.
These are two complicated propositions to grasp at this hour of the morning, but I think that, at any rate, the Minister of State will be aware of the ground we are on because he has been dealing with it for some time.
I will give the House a few examples of what we have in mind. Last year the average council house rent in Scotland represented 92 per cent. of the average gross annual value. Within this average there were wide variations. Edinburgh was 79 per cent., Coatbridge was 67 per cent., and the new town corporations

were at the other end of the scale at 146 per cent.
One difficulty in discussing this matter is that it seems by no means clear what St. Andrew's House is currently regarding as a notional rent for the purposes of the 1966 exercise. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us when he replies. Is it the 90 per cent. of gross annual value in 1964–65 or the 95 per cent. in 1965–66? It is difficult to get a clear answer. Until we do get a clear answer it is extremely difficult to tell whether any local authorities in Scotland —and, if so, which—will stand to suffer loss of Exchequer grant as a result of being denied the right to increase council house rents under the terms of this Clause if these Amendments were not accepted.
All that we can say—and this seems to be an irrefutable proposition in equity —is that ratepayers in Scotland will suffer twice over by the intervention of the Government under the terms of the Clause. Once, because the Government intervene to prevent rent increases and thereby transfer part of the burden of rising costs from council tenants to ratepayers; and a second time over because, as a result of the Government intervening to prevent council house rents going up, the Exchequer subsidy is automatically cut under the 1966 Act and ratepayers have to bear that consequential burden as well.
8.30a.m.
That is basically the proposition, and it seems to me that it is one which the Government must, in equity, accept. It is tough enough when we make the ratepayers bear the burden. If we double the burden by saying that they must be penalised by the Exchequer for something which is effectively within the control of the Exchequer, it will be wholly improper. For those reasons I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Perhaps I might preface my remarks by saying that just how the burden bears on ratepayers and rent payers depends on what proportion of the housing stock is accounted for by council houses, and what proportion is accounted for by houses in the private sector.
I am sure the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) does not mean this, but he sometimes seems to


imply that council tenants do not pay rates. In one town in Scotland 93 per cent. of the housing stock consists of council houses. Rents and rates are, therefore, very much a matter of into one pocket and out of the other. It does not matter how the judgment is made, except in respect of the 7 per cent. On the other hand, in some places the figures are reversed. Circumstances decide how the judgment is made, and therefore the judgment must in the first instance be that of the local authority.
The hon. Gentleman acknowledged the defectiveness of Amendment No. 87. I do not blame him for its defects. These mistakes occur from time to time even with Ministers, although Ministers are usually more charitable than the hon. Gentleman was when mistakes are made.
It would not be fair to say to a local authority which had pursued a policy of low rents that it is to be given a free hand to raise rents substantially in one go, and thus disrupt the incomes policy. I think that we must try to find some willingness on the part of such an authority to bring in the increase by instalments. That is the essence of what we are trying to argue.
I come, now, to Amendment No. 96. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, the percentage in Scotland under the rate support grant is 100, that is to say in the financial year 1967–68. Discussions are taking place with local authorities through the working party, but I agree that it is no secret that it is reasonable to suppose that that figure will be reviewed, and that it is likely to go up from the present 100 per cent, of gross annual value.
If a local authority in Scotland wants to keep its rent precisely at the level set for the purpose of rate support grant, on past practice rents would have to rise by about 5 per cent, a year on present gross annual values. I remind the House that we are in a quinquennium which does not end until 1971. That would average £53 for Scottish local authority houses, which would mean that rents would rise on average by 1s. per week each year. That would be within the policy that is being outlined here.
The situation envisaged in the Amendment would arise only if the local authority had substantial increases in

housing expenditure. I concede that that might happen, but we do not think that it will happen on a large scale. Alternatively, the situation envisaged could arise if rents before they were increased were substantially less than 100 per cent, of gross annual value, and I agree that that is more likely.
We have to leave the position open. We shall consider sympathetically any proposals which a local authority puts forward for rent increases of more than 7s. 6d. a week on average, and 10s. a week in individual cases. We have offered these as guidelines. We have announced them as guidelines, but it does not follow from these guidelines that any increase under this limit is acceptable or anything above it is forbidden.
I concede that the position in Scotland is not easy, but nevertheless we do not believe that making these Amendments would help us at all. The primary purpose of the Clause is to substantiate the position of the prices and incomes policy, not to solve the housing problems of Scotland which have been with us for some time. We are trying to solve this in a progressive, reasonable and moderate way, and I would ask the House not to accept these Amendments.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has not answered at any rate one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). The Government, we know, are seeking to peg prices in this Bill and also to set limits on rent increases, but they appear to be ignoring rates completely.
I hope I may have the attention of the hon. Gentleman. This is the first time I have spoken on this Bill—

Dr. Mabon: Actually, it is a message from the hon. Gentleman's own whips.

Mr. Campbell: I am delighted to think that it may bring some relief to the hon. Gentleman, but I want his attention because my hon. Friend raised some very important points and the hon. Gentleman has not replied on this question of rates.
In Scotland rates are regrettably higher than elsewhere in Britain. This was not only brought out by the Prices and Incomes Board on page 4 of its


Report, but we have also had this from the Allen Committee when it reported on the impact of rates in Britain.
In this debate and in the last debate my hen. Friend has been seeking to avoid increases in rates because these increases are going to be felt too by those whose incomes are being restrained by this Bill. But there appears to be no attempt to put any kind of curb on these increases, while proposals are being put forward to curb rent increases.
This must be a most unsatisfactory situation for Scotland, where rates are higher in any case and where an attempt to peg rent increases may well have the effect of increasing rates.
I will not go into all the complicated details of the resources element of the rate support grant, but it appears from what the Minister has said that some local authorities could lose part of their grant. In reply to a Question which I put to the Secretary of State when this Report first came out and the Government declared their view, the Secretary of State indicated that local authorities would not lose any grant in Scotland.
It may have been an off-the-cuff reply at a very early stage, but the Minister has not said anything this morning to remove our fears that some local authorities may well not get their full grant because they will not be able to raise rents in the way they would have done in order to qualify for the full amount of the resources element.

Mr. Brace-Gardyne: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it would go some long way towards satisfying our anxieties if we could have from the Minister of State a clear and categorical undertaking that in no circumstances would local authorities be penalised under the terms of the 1966 Act if the Government intervene under Clause 10 of the Bill to prevent them raising rents?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend has put it in another way. As I indicated at Question Time some weeks ago I had an answer from the Secretary of State which appeared to say what my hon. Friend has said, but the Minister of State this evening did not say anything on this. He carefully avoided giving any such assurance.

Dr. Mabon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman showed such a preference for an hon. Member on his side. Perhaps he would put a Question on average household income and the rates, because I think that he is wrong. Speaking off the cuff, I believe that the figure for England and Wales in respect of the average household rate for the last financial year was £40 8s. and for Scotland £39 12s. 6d. If he would like to put down a Question about the average rise in rates, speaking off the cuff again I believe that the rise over the present financial year was 1·6 per cent. for Scotland, which is better than in England. I do not want to be held too closely to those figures. That is why I have said that this matter should be pursued by way of Question and Answer. I do not want to be discourteous.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Member has complained that I gave way to my hon. Friend first; that was in order that the question could be put quite clearly. But he has not answered that question. He has come up with something quite different about rates. The Prices and Incomes Board Report, at the top of page 4, says:
In Scotland rate contributions tend to be much higher than in England and Wales. Such variations have a bearing on the variations in rent levels between one authority and another.
I have not got a copy of the voluminous Allen Report, but I can remember that its conclusion was that in Scotland rates are high and rents low, and the former subsidise the latter.
Council rents are very much higher in England, and rates, in comparison, are very much higher in Scotland. The Minister cannot argue about this now. This is a comparison between two countries and the averages may come out as he says, but both the Board and the Allen Committee have put it in a nutshell and I am prepared to stand by what they have said.
The Minister of State has not given us an assurance that some Scottish local authorities will not lose the resources element of the rate support grant as a result of action which they had proposed to take in increasing the average standard rent this year and then being prevented from doing so by the intervention of the Government. The Minister


said that if they were in that position it was because they were charging too low a rent before and that therefore they should not be helped this year. That is a difference of opinion; we believe that councils which are being encouraged to end the distortion that exists in council house rents in Scotland should not be stopped from doing so. We think that it is wrong to stop them by making them lose part of the grant, so that they pass it on to their ratepayers. The rate is being increased and nothing in the Bill seeks to curb this increase.

Amendment negatived.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 9, line 38, leave out ' Housing (Scotland) Act 1950' and insert:
'Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968'.
Would it be convenient for hon. Members to discuss, at the same time, Government Amendments Nos. 98 and 99?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Dr. Mabon: The first two Amendments are consequential on the enactment of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1968, which completed the consolidation of the Housing Acts. Clauses 10(2) and 12(4) of the Bill define the local authorities and the houses which will be subject to the provisions of these Clauses by reference to the Acts under which housing revenue accounts are kept. The Amendments substitute the 1968 Act for the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. The purpose of the third Amendment in this series is to continue the application of the 1950 Act during the interval between the passing of the Bill and 30th August, 1968, the date on which the 1968 Act comes into force.

Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I took a keen interest in this matter and, not so long ago, undertook to start this consolidation.

Dr. Mabon: But I did it.

Mr. Campbell: I was pressed to give a date for the consolidation and to give an undertaking. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends urged this action to be taken when they were in opposition. We were at that time, as the Gov-

ernment, trying to get the consolidation achieved as soon as possible. At last the necessary consolidation provisions are available. We welcome this and are glad that the necessary Amendments have been introduced.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill be now—

Mr. MacColl: Oh, dear.

Dr. Mabon: I have made a mistake. I am sorry. I withdraw what I almost completed saying.

Mr. MacColl: That was a rude shock. I beg to move Amendment No. 89, in page 10, line 23, leave out ' either rent' and insert:
'one or both of the rents'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that we take with this Amendment the following one, Government Amendment No. 90.

Mr. MacColl: That is satisfactory, since they are drafting Amendments following a discussion we had in Committee.

Mr. Rossi: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for trying to meet an objection which my hon. Friends advanced to subsection (4) in Committee. We had something of a game with the Parliamentary draftsmen at that stage because my hon. Friends realised the virtual impossibility of putting into clear and decisive language the woolly and muddled policies of the Government.
I want to be certain that I understand the Clause. Am I to understand that where there is a differential rent or rebate scheme in operation with a local authority, and where there is a change in the circumstances of the tenant, then for the purpose of deciding whether or not an increase is justified, one applies the circumstances of the tenant at the date of the increase to both the former rent and the latter rent? In other words, assuming that at the date of the former rent the family income of a tenant was £16 a week, but his income increased from £16 to £20, so that his rebate decreased—that is, his rent went up—to see whether it was an increase which justified intervention under these provisions, is the Minister saying in the


Bill that one applies his second set of circumstances—that is, his income of £20 a week—to the former rent and adjusts the former rent to the position it would have in the rent rebate scale of the local authority on an income of £20? One if left with a situation of a former rent and a latter rent, comparing them from the rent rebate scheme point of view, at the income point of a tenant on the scale of £20 a week.
If that is right one assumes that the conclusion reached is that no increase in rent has actually taken place. I think that is right, because one is applying the latter circumstances of the tenant to the previous rent and his rent would be increased by saying that his income was that much higher at the earlier date. If the Parliamentary Secretary has been able to follow what I have been saying after staying up all these hours—and I am afraid I have not explained myself very clearly—I hope that he will be able to answer the point.

Mr. MacColl: The circumstances of the tenant at the time of the latter rent would govern the situation. That is the point of the definition in the terms of the circumstances at the later date. The important change is not so much the rebate scheme as the lodger charge. The difficulty arises that if the local authority reduced the standard rent but increased the lodger charge there would not be an increase in rent because only the lodger charge would be increased. To deal with that we introduced these proposals. If it is merely that the tenant's circumstances

change because he has another lodger coming in, that would not be an increase in rent but a change of circumstances, which would not be taken into account.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 90, in line 27, leave out ' that rent' and insert:
'the rent or each of the rents so payable'.— [Mr. MacColl.]

Clause 12

INCREASE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY RENTS WITHOUT NOTICE TO QUIT

Amendment made: No. 98, in page 14, line 14, leave out ' Housing (Scotland) Act 1950' and insert:
'Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968'.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Clause 13

CITATION, DURATION, EXTENT ETC.

Amendment made: No. 99, in page 14, line 35, at end insert:
(3) The references in sections 10(2) and 12(4) above to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968 shall, in relation to any time before the coming into force of that Act, be construed as references to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered this day.

Orders of the Day — KIRKBY COLLIERY (CLOSURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

8.52 a.m.

Mr. David Marquand: Even at this disgraceful hour, I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Floor of the House because the issues involved are of the greatest possible importance to my constituents, and indeed to the whole of the Nottinghamshire coalfield.
I emphasise at the outset that I do not intend to say anything about the specific position of Kirkby Colliery itself. The N.C.B. decision to close this pit, which employs 2,000 men and on which about £4 million has been invested in the last six years, has aroused deep anxiety throughout the Nottinghamshire coalfield. There is a widespread demand for a public inquiry, not only from the Kirkby Branch of the N.U.M., but from the area executive.
A number of my hon. Friends from the area and I have written to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power asking him to receive a deputation on this point. I do not think it would be right for me to say anything more about it until we have received his reply.
This morning I want to concentrate not on the closure of Kirkby Colliery itself, but on the implications of its closure for the economic development of the area. In particular, I want to draw the Government's attention to two points. The first is the urgent need—even more urgent now than it was before—to attract new labour intensive industry to this part of the Nottinghamshire coalfield. The second is the need to re-examine the working of the Redundancy Payments Act so far as it affects mine-workers.
Dealing with the second point first, since it is more limited and specific, the position is as follows. Many of the younger miners at Kirkby are likely to be offered alternative employment at other collieries in other parts of the coalfield. Some of them, no doubt, will be quite happy to take them. Others, however, will not. There is a widespread feeling among the miners in my constitu-

ency that they work in a dying industry. Many of them do not want to take jobs at other collieries far from their homes which may involve long journeys of up to an hour each way. Many of them feel that if they do accept alternative employment at other collieries they will still have no guarantee of secure employment in future, since even a profitable pit may become unprofitable in five or 10 years time. What many of the younger miners want is a chance to leave the industry now while they are still young enough to acquire new skills.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State may say that they can do this now. A miner who is made redundant by a colliery closure is not obliged to accept alternative employment at another colliery. The fact remains that if a miner is offered alternative employment at a colliery which is considered to be within reasonable travelling distance and he turns the offer down, he may lose his entitlement to redundancy pay. I can tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State that this state of affairs has aroused intense bitterness and anger throughout the Nottinghamshire coalfield.
I appeal to the Government at least to examine the possibility of changing the redundancy payment system to meet the miners' feelings on this matter. I realise the difficulties and that the Redundancy Payments Act has been a great boon to workers, and I do not belittle it. Nevertheless, I urge the Government, in view of the fact that the mining industry is in a unique position as the most rapidly contracting industry, to look at the situation sympathetically. I hope to have an assurance from my hon. Friend that he will be able to do this.
I turn now to the question of alternative industry. This is overwhelmingly the most important issue. Just how important it is can be seen by looking at the employment statistics in the Sutton-in-Ashfield employment exchange area, where Kirkby Colliery is situated. In the Sutton-in-Ashfield employment exchange area, nearly 55 per cent. of the male insured population were, at the time of the last count, employed in mining. According to figures which I obtained from the Ministry of Labour a few months ago, almost one-fifth of the male insured population were employed at four pits which were known to be in


difficulties. One of the four was Kirkby, which is now about to close. These figures give an impression of the stark-ness of the problem which exists in the area. They are reinforced by the powerful supplementary evidence recently submitted by the Nottinghamshire County Council to the Hunt Committee on "grey" areas, from which I would like to quote.
The Nottinghamshire County Council wrote as follows:
During 1967, Nottinghamshire's total of 37 collieries was reduced to 34. … The first three months of 1968 have seen further contraction and rationalisation at Morgreen resulting in a reduction of the colliery's manpower by 600 men, and by June Brookhill colliery, on the Derbyshire/Nottinghamshire border, will be closed and the miners transferred to Kirkby Bentinck. In April the National Coal Board announced that Clifton and Kirkby collieries would close in July and August of this year. … The consequences of the closure "—
of Kirkby—
could be an economic catastrophe for the town of Kirkby-in-Ashfield, which is heavily dependent on mining as a source of employment with 43 per cent. of its male working population directly involved in the coal industry. At the same time, it will seriously affect the adjoining town of Sutton-in-Ashfield, where a large proportion of Kirkby colliery's miners live. Moreover, the unemployment problems in the Kirkby and Sutton area will be exacerbated by the decision to close Swan-wick colliery, in Derbyshire. …
In addition to those collieries where closures have already been announced, several others have been placed in jeopardy by the National Coal Board and it seems unlikely that they will remain open for very much longer. … Several other Nottinghamshire pits to the south and west of Mansfield are known to be in difficulties … and a total of nine pits could well be closed in this vicinity during the next few years.
It will be seen, therefore, that in the few months since the submission of evidence the coalfield position has deteriorated considerably and it now seems that the critical period previously expected to fall within 1970–75 will now occur in the immediate period to 1971.
The County Council goes on to point out that jobs in the profitable long-life pits in the eastern part of the coalfield are rapidly becoming scarce and that in any case men who are transferred to those collieries will probably suffer a significant drop in earnings.
The County Council continues:
In this situation it is most unlikely that the transfer of miners to other collieries will continue to take place on a substantial scale, particularly where house-moving is involved,

and the majority will seek work outside the area and move away.
The County Council's evidence to the Hunt Committee concludes that within the Kirkby/Sutton area some 3,000 miners will need re-employment outside the mining industry by 1971 without taking account of the need to provide new job opportunities for school leavers who would no longer be able to find jobs in mining.
As things are at the moment, alternative employment outside coalmining is simply not available on the necessary scale. If nothing is done, the 3,000 jobs which the county council calculates will be needed by 1971 will have to be found outside the area. If that happens, the population, and especially the younger population, will inevitably drift away, leading to a waste of social capital in the areas concerned and greater congestion in the areas to which it moves. The problem we face now in the western part of the Nottinghamshire coalfield is very urgent. It is not a problem for the late 1970s, as we once thought. It is not even a problem for the early 1970s. It is a problem for urgent action now.
I realise that the problem in the development areas is far more acute. I support the regional policies of the Government which are designed to give priority to development areas. I am sure that the vast majority of my constituents would say the same. Although we accept that the development areas should get priority, we believe very strongly that, unless the Government take some action to steer new industry to our part of the Nottinghamshire coalfields, the problems which exist in the development areas today will exist tomorrow in the Nottinghamshire coalfield as well. We believe that prevention is better than cure and we are asking the Government to take action now to prevent large-scale unemployment from coming into existence in this area, instead of waiting until it comes to cure it when the disease has started.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I draw the attention of the House to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and I fully support the comments which are being made, because we are concerned with the area. I underline the fact that the submission from the Nottinghamshire


County Council which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) quotes was a supplementary report to the Hunt Committee, which shows that the previous report—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief at this time of the day.

Mr. Bishop: With respect, Sir, I was going to draw attention to the fact that the evidence submitted to the Committee a few months ago is already out of date, which underlines the urgency of the point my hon. Friend is making about the need for more I.D.Cs and greater help for this area.

Mr. Marquand: That is exactly what I was coming on to say. That is absolutely true. The evidence from which I quoted was the supplementary evidence submitted a few days ago. The county council drew attention in the supplementary evidence to the fact that the position had become much more acute than it had been when it submitted its original evidence.
I draw attention to a number of proposals that the Nottinghamshire County Council has made in its supplementary evidence and its original evidence and which I endorse and strongly support. The first is with regard to the drawing of the boundaries of a possible grey area in this region. Apparently the East Midlands Planning Council has suggested that the boundaries of any future grey area in the East Midlands should be drawn by taking a 7-mile distance from the centre of Nottingham, Derby, Mansfield, Chesterfield and designating the area which lies outside that distance as a grey area. This assumes that Mansfield and Chesterfield can be equated with Nottingham and Derby in terms of their capacity to generate alternative employment for redundant miners. This is simply not true, because Mansfield and Chesterfield are themselves heavily dependent on mining. I therefore believe that it is essential that any future grey area should include Sutton-in-Ashfield and Kirkby-in-Ashfield, as the county council suggests.
Even before the Hunt Committee reports, certain things can be done, as the county council suggests in its evidence. First, there is the question of industrial development certificates. In the past, the

Board of Trade was understandably reluctant to grant I.D.Cs for the Nottinghamshire coalfield since it was assumed that the mining industry would continue to provide satisfactory employment for the foreseeable future. That is no longer true. I urge the Government to make clear that for Kirkby-in-Ashfield and Sutton-in-Ashfield there will no longer be any question of refusing industrial development certificates either for existing employers to expand or for new employers to come in.
It is not enough for the Government simply to operate their I.D.C. policy more flexibly. It is also necessary for them to to proclaim loudly and clearly that they intend to do so, because otherwise industry will not know that the policy has changed. One of the problems in Nottinghamshire has been that industrialists have not bothered to apply for I.D.Cs since they have taken it for granted that in Nottinghamshire they would not be granted.
Second, there is the question of dereliction and environmental improvement. The area desperately needs a face-lift if industry is to be attracted to it. The local authorities in the area are conscious of this need. The county council has said that it is prepared to put £150,000 a year of rate-borne expenditure into it. But the problem cannot be solved simply by the local authorities. As a minimum, the Government should say that local authorities in an area such as this should have at least the same treatment that local authorities have in development areas. They should have an 85 per cent. grant towards this work instead of the 50 per cent. which is all that is available now outside development areas.
Next, the question of training facilities. Obviously, the Government have rightly concentrated on the development areas in their location of Government training centres. Now, however, in Nottinghamshire we face the same problems as are faced in mining districts in the development areas. It is now time for the Government to provide more training facilities at Government training centres than the very limited facilities which are available now at Long Eaton.
I have put to my hon. Friend the Minister of State some of the points which the county council made in its


evidence to the Hunt Committee. It makes several other recommendations which I should like to draw to his attention, and I hope that he will consider them all sympathetically. In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) for coming to the debate and intervening in support of my case, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) for his presence, too; though he is prevented by his position as a Whip from intervening, he strongly supports the cause. I am much obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for giving us a sympathetic hearing.

9.8 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. T. W. Urwin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) not only for his endurance in having lasted so long through this very long night but for raising the question of the closure of Kirkby Colliery, which is of deep concern to his constituents. Although he said that he would not dwell on the reasons for the closure, I think that it would be to the advantage of the House if I were to fill in some of the factors contributing to the closure decision.
The National Coal Board announced in February that Kirkby Colliery, in the South Nottinghamshire area, was in jeopardy, and on 22nd April that it would close at the end of August. The colliery, which, at the end of March, employed about 1,950 men, has recently been the subject of a £3·4 million reorganisation scheme, under which its workings have been linked to those at the nearby Langton Colliery and were also to be linked to those at the Brook-hill Colliery. It is now expected that Brookhill will be linked with another pit. Up to the end of March 1967, £2·7 million had been spent.
The scheme was designed to produce an annual output of about 2 million tons, but subsequently, unfortunately, geological difficulties were encountered which made it physically impossible to sustain an output of this order. In 1966–67 Kirkby made a loss of £850,000 after interest. This represented 13s. 11d. per ton. In 1967–68 it made a loss of £1,587,000, again after interest. Losses in Apr 1 and May this year on the same

basis were £111,000 and £121,000 respectively.
My hon. Friend referred to the problems of the area generally. The two Nottinghamshire areas of the National Coal Board and the North Derbyshire area contain a large number of continuing pits, including 11 of the Board's 50 top priority collieries, thus providing scope for redeployment within the industry. When Kirkby eventually closes it is estimated that of the 1,950 men employed there, 1,000 or more will be given the opportunity to transfer to other pits, 350 will be retained for salvage work, 250 will be accounted for by normal wastage, and about 350 will be redundant and entitled to benefits under the Redundant Mine Workers Payments Scheme. Under these separate headings 627 men had already been accounted for by 22nd June.
I understand that despite importation of miners from other coal fields where the industry is undergoing much greater and faster decline, there are currently 2,000 vacancies for miners in pits within the region. I accept my hon. Friend's point about the reluctance of miners to accept jobs within the industry which involve them in substantial travelling time. The problem is not restricted to this area by any means. The men concerned must appreciate that, so far as one can see ahead, there is a future for a large number of men in the coal mines.
Locally, in the Employment Exchange Area of Sutton there are currently 109 unfilled vacancies for miners, and at nearby Mansfield there are 167. These exclude vacancies in the industry for men transferring from other pits.
Whilst my hon. Friend properly draws attention to the need for new and more labour-intensive industries, he will, I am sure, recognise that alternative employment prospects here are really brighter than those prevailing in respect of many other pit closures.
However, some men will, unfortunately, be declared redundant, and this sharply raises the fact that massive industrial reorganisation on the scale affecting the mining industry requires the provision of facilities for retraining, in order to equip men for participation in employment in other industries. I am glad that my hon. Friend drew attention to this, and to the facilities already existing.


These comprise Government training centres at Long Eaton where there are 277 places, Leicester with 219 places, and Sheffield, just outside the region, with 187 places. Proposed new centres at North Staffordshire and Wolverhampton are due for completion in 1970. The North Staffordshire centre is expected to reduce the present pressure of demand on Long Eaton. Portland College for the Disabled and Remploy factories at Alfreton and Mansfield make provision for training disabled persons. But redundant miners are unlikely to be so seriously disabled as to qualify for those places.
On 10th June, 1968 there were eight redundant mine workers in training in the Midlands Region, and from September, 1967 to June, 1968 five redundant mine workers have completed training courses. I am sure that this information will be of real interest to my hon. Friend.
However, I assure him that it is not my intention to minimise the importance of the manifold problems arising from the closure of a pit around which the economic and social life of a community is so often closely woven. Indeed, representing a constituency within the Northern Region which has suffered from pit closures—a region which is continuously carrying an enormous burdensome weight of unemployment and migration, largely attributable to the contraction of the mining industry—I can readily understand my hon. Friend's concern, and the fears of his constituents, about the impact of this closure upon the area which he so capably represents; and in this context I agree that he rightly identifies the major problem as one of planning.
On the long-term planning aspect, I feel sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that diversification of industry, which is so desirable in areas like this and to which he has given attention, is not a new situation. It has been developing for quite a long time and it is unfortunate that the area has been overtaken by the precipitation of the closure of this pit as a result of the acceleration of the Coal Board's programme. However, I assure him that his point has been fully taken and understood.
The East Midlands Economic Planning Council has recognised that the long-term

effect of pit closures is to remove the traditional outlet for male employment and reveals the outstanding need to plan for new industries on an appreciable scale, on well chosen sites, with the accent on male jobs. In the East Midland Study, the Planning Council defined an industrial zone which needed special examination with a view to its possible development as one unit to absorb population and industry. As my hon. Friend knows, Kirkby-in-Ashfield is very near the heart of this zone. I would remind him that at the time the study was produced the Economic Planning Council visualised the possibility of difficulties arising, many of which he has referred to, and it said, in relation to this industrial zone:—
Much research in detail will be required before an overall plan can be prepared. While this plan must be concerned with the position at the end of the century, the problems will emerge progressively in the interval and the basic decisions must be taken early. It is recommended that a special study of this zone should be undertaken straight away ".
I think that it is within my hon. Friend's knowledge that a planning unit has recently been set up jointly by the four local planning authorities of Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire and they have given a free hand to the unit to develop any necessary contact with the Planning Council and the Planning Board. The unit leader is hoping for close co-operation as the study progresses and is meeting a group of Planning Board officers on 17th July, 1968. This indicates the co-operation between regional and local planning authorities on economic and physical planning aspects aiming at a solution to the problems of the area. The unit is studying the whole area, and decisions on particular growth points must inevitably await the results of this study.
There is also the work of the Hunt Committee, set up to study areas outside the development areas whose economic growth gives cause for concern. The report of this Committee is expected later this year, and naturally and understandably the Committee has received a considerable amount of evidence from all parts of the country where economic growth is not proceeding as fast as people think it should. Kirkby is one of the areas which have submitted a certain amount of evidence relating to their own


problems and to those of the Erewash Valley district as a whole.
The Hunt Committee, as recently as 20th June, visited the area and had discussions with the Economic Planning Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and the Sutton and Kirkby local authorities; and I understand that on that occasion my hon. Friend himself was able to supplement the views expressed by the local authorities on a personal basis. The delegation was also able briefly to tour the area, including Kirkby. The Hunt Committee's findings, when available, may well have a considerable influence on the Government's long-term thinking on the economic future of areas such as this and the policies which should be applied, though it would be wholly wrong to presuppose that the Hunt Committee can produce an effective solution of the many problems of individual local authority areas, or that their planning procedures and activities should be halted or suspended pending the presentation of that report.
As for the immediate issues, the Kirkby area was not included in the area which the East Midlands Economic Planning Council originally recommended to the Hunt Committee in November last year for consideration as an intermediate area, but the Council's submission made the point that the area should be extended as further pit closures occurred. The Council has subsequently drawn attention to the worsening situation. Nottinghamshire County Council

included Kirkby in its first grey area and has subsequently pressed for the inclusion of Sutton, too.
My hon. Friend will recall that a colliery closures liaison committee has been established. It includes N.U.M. representation and facilities are provided for M.P.s to attend meetings to discuss any matters such as the Kirkby closure. The Chairman of the Economic Planning Council is to discuss the whole situation with its members on 12th July.
I have attempted to indicate that the immediate redundancy problem is likely to be limited and that the long-term effects will have to be considered in relation to the whole area of which Kirkby is part. The House can be assured that all the planning bodies are working on the problem involved and that Ministers are being kept fully informed. My hon. Friend spoke of I.D.C. policy and will recall that a firm control of the issue of I.D.C.s is, among other measures, an integral part of regional policy designed to reduce the existing imbalance between the more prosperous regions and the development areas.
However, the Board of Trade's attitude to the area has been sympathetic and a reasonable number—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Nine o'clock a.m.